Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for as long as I may consume.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Omnibus appropriations conference report that I guess will be before this body at the pleasure of the members of the Appropriations Committee.

I call my colleagues' attention to the size of this bill. There are 13 agencies of government, all appropriations bills, and none of this, because of the pressing issues of the calendar, will be open to any amendments--no amendments regarding all these functions of government and a cost of, in this particular bill, it is $915 billion. These are 9 appropriations bills of the 12. This contains $915 billion that we will probably be considering, and because of the fact that we all have to get out of town--and I am one of those--we will vote sometime tomorrow, and we will be able to tell our constituents we have completed our task for the year, at least as far as funding the government to continue--as we seem to threaten to do every year, although I am not sure people are as frightened as they used to be.

This bill before me is 1,221 pages long and contains funding for nine of the annual appropriations bills, for a grand total of $915 billion. If you add the three appropriations bills already enacted, we are going to spend $1.043 trillion. That is a fantastic improvement because last year it was $1.1 trillion. So I am glad our constituents, whom we promised, when some of us, such as myself, ran in 2010 for reelection, that we would get this $15 trillion debt under control--and we go back to Washington and eliminate the reckless and out-of-control spending, I am sure they will be pleased to know that instead of $1.1 trillion, we are now down to $1.043 trillion--a reduction of approximately 5 percent. We can get a better deal than that at the Macy's Christmas sale. Of course, not to forget the earmarks--here it is.

I am confident no average Member of the Senate--what I mean by that is not a member of the Appropriations Committee has had a chance to peruse this hernia-inducing piece of legislation. If it sounds like I am a little cynical and a little angry, it is because I am, and the American people are cynical and angry.

There are 535 Members of Congress. All of us are sent by our constituents to represent them. But I think the American people and our constituents should know this is a report on a bill that is signed by 37 Members of the House and 17 Members of the Senate. There are 535 Members, and these are the ones who put this together. It is full of hundreds of earmarks, pork, unnecessary spending, and projects in the defense portion of the bill, which I will be talking a fair amount about, which are neither requested nor needed by the men and women serving in the military. It is full of things I will talk about later on, such as artifact museums for Guam, medical research--this is in the Defense appropriations bill and has nothing to do with defense.

Then we begin to wonder why the American people have such a low opinion of our performance in our Nation's Capital. I saw a poll that says it is as low as 9 percent. Hopefully, that is not representative-- maybe it is a 10-, 11-, 12-percent approval rating. We were debating a bill last year that had $1.1 trillion and contained 6,488 earmarks that totaled $8.3 billion. Now we have a bill that is $915 billion, and this year we have no traditional earmarks, but there is $3.5 billion in unauthorized spending in the Department of Defense portion of the bill alone--the Defense appropriations part of it is $3.5 billion, on which there has never been a hearing, and it has never been considered by the Armed Services Committee. If it was, it was rejected. So we have $3.5 billion just in the defense part of the bill. Nobody wanted it or asked for it, neither the military, nor the services, nor was there a hearing. They added $3.5 billion in the Department of Defense alone.

I think the men and women in the military deserve better than some of these earmarks that I will talk about. Here we are, we are going to rush and beat the clock, and we haven't even moved to this piece of legislation yet. In case some of our constituents don't know, a call will be made to everybody saying please agree to a few hours' time agreement so we can vote tomorrow and we can all go home, and we will. There will not be a single amendment debated and voted on, on this bill on this floor. I would like to say we didn't see it coming, but the fact is we did see it coming.

In keeping with the regular order and legislating requirements of the Senate, the Armed Services Committee--of which I have been a proud member for many years--scheduled and conducted more than 70 hearings, vetted the President's budget request, and reported a bill out. Seven months later, we moved to the floor of the Senate and we did authorize funding and hundreds of millions of dollars and the appropriators decided they knew better. We have a fundamental problem in the Senate, and we are unable to engage in the process of authorizing prior to the regular appropriations. What is the outcome? A handful of people--all good, honest, decent people, I am sure--and unelected staff disburse hundreds of billions of dollars, often in a manner that directly contradicts the will of the authorizers--those who are entrusted in their Committee assignments to authorize what is necessary to defend this Nation.

So here we are at the eleventh hour ramming through a measure so we can get out of town for the holidays. I will talk about some of the provisions,

most of which are in the Defense appropriations portion of this conference report.

Section 8083 of the bill permits the Secretary of Defense to transfer operations and maintenance funds. Operations and maintenance funds are supposed to buy the gas and the spare parts--the things that keep the military machine moving. That is what it is. So $33 million goes to Guam, and this funding is in direct contradiction of the explicit direction that was in the conference report that prevented this because we knew it was coming.

If this omnibus bill were subject to amendment, I would immediately seek to strip the funding from this bill. Let me be clear. This funding I am talking about for Guam is a ``bridge to nowhere.'' The money, in part, is to provide the Government of Guam funds to buy 53 civilian schoolbuses. They put money in the Defense bill for 53 schoolbuses and 53 repair kits for the buses for $10.7 million. That is to buy schoolbuses and repair kits for Guam. Why? Why would we want to do that? Their reasoning is because we are redeploying marines from Japan. But we have paused that redeployment in the authorization bill because we don't know exactly how to do it. So we are pausing the redeployment of marines; meanwhile, the appropriators move forward and put $10.7 million in to buy civilian schoolbuses, and not one single marine, sailor or airman has been assigned to Guam as part of the intended buildup that would justify in any way using that money.

What else are we buying with this $33 million? Well, $12.7 million is intended to be used for a cultural artifacts repository. I am not making that up--$12.7 million of your tax dollars is buying a cultural artifacts repository in Guam, in the name of the redeployment of the U.S. marines from Japan, which is not taking place. They claim it is related to artifacts that will be dug up during the major military construction projects that have been planned for Guam as part of the buildup. But with the agreement of the Pentagon, we have put it on hold.

I guess it is important when you are doing a military construction project to preserve the artifacts. The money intended for this cultural artifacts repository is, at best, early, and much less if it were ever needed. So here we are with an investment of at least $33 million on a ``bridge to nowhere'' to hold artifacts that will never be dug out of the Earth.

The money in this Defense appropriations bill for this cultural artifacts repository is actually going to be spent to build a 20,000- square-foot museum, most of which will be used for the storage of existing artifacts and existing administration, completely unrelated to the major military construction projects associated with the buildup on Guam.

They get the benefits of $12.5 million in Federal largess for a new museum, which otherwise they could not get. I would like to say there are many citizens of Arizona who are out of work, whose homes have been lost, and who would benefit from any sort of action by the Federal Government--the holiday season is approaching in my State and all over America where there is not enough money to fund the food banks, and we are going to spend money on schoolbuses and cultural repositories in Guam.

That is not the end of the story. This initial funding grant to Guam of $33 million includes $9.6 million for the first phase of a mental health facility. They claim that is somehow related to the proposed military buildup on Guam. I am still trying to sort that one out. Without one additional marine or his family being stationed on Guam, how does a proposed buildup not happening for years help with a mental health facility on Guam?

It might not surprise you to learn this money for a new mental health facility has nothing to do with any marines coming to Guam but is required to satisfy a current Federal injunction that mandates the construction of a new facility. So take it out of Defense. Take it out of the hardware and the operations and maintenance our men and women in the military need.

Our committee did the research for these projects. We reviewed the working papers of the Department of Defense's Economic Adjustment Committee and found this funding would not go to its priorities and decided, as a conference, not to support the authorization.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Working Papers Excerpt of DOD's Economic Adjustment Committee.

Mr. President, this is not the way Congress is supposed to

work. Authorizing committees exist to provide specific congressional approval of Federal spending. Appropriations committees and subcommittees exist to take the available Federal dollars and allocate them to programs consistent with the authorizations that have been provided by the authorizing committees. In no way do appropriations committees have the legitimate authority to override the specific direction of authorizing committees when those authorizing committees have spoken to a matter and denied authority for a specific type or level of funding.

This is why the approval rating of Congress is in single digits. The American people have seen through this. They see this kind of abuse and waste and they have had enough of it. If you don't understand the rise of the tea party, you can start by looking right here.

It is not as if this issue was somehow hidden from the leadership of the Appropriations Committee. I wrote to the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. Let me give a few examples of what the Appropriations Committee has done.

There is a program called MEADS--the Medium Extended Air Defense System. The program was supposed to have been terminated as originally proposed in the Senate version of the bill. The Defense appropriations portion of the bill is at $390 million, nearly the entire $406 million requested. We found out the Appropriations Committee was going to fund the program, and I felt compelled to ensure the final Defense authorization conference report prohibits any funding beyond 2012. Under the requirements imposed by the Defense authorization conference report, this year's funding will be restrained by prohibiting the Department from spending more than 25 percent until the Secretary of Defense provides a plan to either restructure the program in a way that requires no additional funding or terminates the program. So we wanted to get this report from the Secretary. But what did the Appropriations Committee do? The full $406 million.

I think my colleagues should understand, they have decided to never put this system--the Medium Extended Air Defense System--into operation. They want to have a corporate memory, a memory of what they have learned in spending what ends up to be a couple of billion dollars.

The Next-Generation Bomber. The President asked there not be money proposed for the Next-Generation Bomber, but the appropriators chose to add $100 million--$100 million. This is money for the Next Generation Bomber that was not requested by the Air Force nor was there any testimony by the Air Force leadership, either civilian or military, in support of this additional huge addition in funding. It magically appeared here.

This morning, I tried to find out if this money would be wisely spent, and the answer is no. We called the Air Force Chief of Staff. They said they didn't request the funding. They do not want it. The money is ahead of need, meaning it could not be applied to the program in an effective or efficient manner.

The analysis of alternatives, which helps determine what the capability of the bomber should be, will not be completed for another year and a half. The capabilities requirement document, which is key to ensuring the new bomber design is stable--which is needed to determine if increased taxpayer dollars should be invested in the new bomber--is not complete and will not be complete for a couple of years. Finally, they wanted to use this money to sustain the bomber force they have.

So why? Why? Why would we add $100 million when there is absolutely no way it could be used? Well, I can only say there are reasons for it. I will not make allegations, but it is not magic. It is not something that appears out of thin air.

There is a program called Combat Dragon. Of approximately 100 unrequested and unauthorized additions above the President's budget request found in the appropriations bill, one of the more interesting ones is a $20 million allocation for an obscure aircraft program called Combat Dragon II. The name is interesting. Sounds pretty exciting. You won't find it in the President's budget request. It didn't appear in our authorization bill. So I asked my staff to find out what happened.

The purpose of the program: Combat Dragon II is to lease up to four crop-duster-type aircraft and to outfit them with machine gun pods, laser-guided bombs, rockets, and air-to-air missiles. I asked if this request was justified, vetted, approved in any way. The answer was no, no, no. There is no urgent operational requirement for this type of aircraft.

After a little investigation, we found this aircraft lease will not be--surprise, surprise--competitively awarded. As such, it is effectively earmarked for a particular aircraft manufacturer that has the corner on this particularly obscure part of the aviation market.

The C-17. The Defense appropriations bill adds $225 million--only $225 million--for an unrequested, unauthorized C-17 aircraft that no one in the U.S. Air Force or the Pentagon thought we needed. According to every strategic planning document, the Air Force has an excess capacity of large cargo aircraft, and the Air Force already has 222 C- 17 cargo aircraft and more than 80 C-5s.

The key reason for an overage of large cargo aircraft is because the Appropriations Committee over the past several years added 44 C-17s that were not authorized--that we neither needed nor could afford--at a cost of $14 billion above the Department's request.

The OMB, five Secretaries of Defense, the Commander of Transportation Command, and the current Secretary of the Air Force have all unanimously stated they do not need nor can they afford to operate any more C-17 aircraft. In fact, the President appealed to the Congress and said the Nation cannot afford any more. You would think after $14 billion and 44 C-17s, averaging over $250 million each, that would be enough of an earmark. Obviously, not so for the Appropriations Committee.

There are others in here. Some of my old favorites. There is $25 million for unrequested helicopter upgrades, an increase to the Civil Air Patrol Program of $7 million, unrequested, unauthorized; $273 million in unrequested, unauthorized research on everything from Parkinson's disease and HIV to alternative energy and nanotechnology.

Speaking of alternate energy, the appropriators tucked unrequested, unauthorized funding throughout a certain division of the bill, and $130 million in ambiguously named ``alternative energy research'' is scattered for the same sort of programs that brought us the recent achievement of the Department of the Navy, which proudly announced the purchase of 450,000 gallons of alternative fuels for $12 million. My friends, that equates to $26 a gallon. I am certain our constituents will be glad to know their tax dollars are now going toward paying $26 a gallon for aviation fuel.

But, no, no, they need more money--$262 million in unauthorized Navy research and development programs. The list of Navy adds is eerily similar to the Army's, and as you would expect, it covers a familiar set of Member interest items--nanotechnology, alternative energy, and giveaways to home-State interests.

There are increases for Space Situational Awareness.

I repeat, $50 million in increases for Space Situational Awareness in two funding lines--just two lines--with no justification. No argument for it. Maybe it is good. It may be good, but we won't know. We won't know for months and months and months, and maybe years.

For those who are interested in the compelling national security issue of space situational awareness, you will be glad to know $50 million of your tax dollars is going to be spent there.

The budget requested $86 million for Operationally Responsive Space. This bill adds $26 million more, just for fun.

The Armed Services Committee authorized, and the Congress will soon appropriate, some $290 million for research into post-traumatic stress disorder, prosthetics, blast injury, and psychological health. These are critical to improving our actual battlefield medicine. Yet once again, the appropriators inserted unrequested money for medical research, this time to the tune of $600 million.

Let me remind my colleagues that these unrequested projects are funded at the expense of other military priorities. I agree that research on multiple

sclerosis is necessary, and Alzheimer's and cancer. But why should it have to come out of the Defense funding?

I will tell you why it does. It is the same reason why Willie Sutton robbed banks. When they asked him why, he said, that is because the money is there. So this money, which may be meritorious to spend on Alzheimer's and cancer and other medical issues, should not come out of the Defense appropriations bill.

Of course, the Guard and Reserve always come in and get additional money. They got $1 billion in unrequested, unauthorized funding for ``miscellaneous equipment.'' I repeat: $1 billion for ``miscellaneous equipment.'' I am sure certain States on the appropriators' short list will be very pleased to have the money directed their way. I am not so sure about the taxpayers.

Some have merit, some don't. None of the ones I talked about were requested. And this is just in Defense. The tragedy of all this is, except for the Senator from Oklahoma and myself and a few others, all this will slide through and the American people--obviously, the taxpayers--will pick up the tab.

We won't have a chance to address the issue of the bonuses that have gone to the executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that have cost the American citizens so many hundreds of billions of dollars. We are going to let these people--because this won't be appropriated--we are going to let them take home annual salaries of $900,000 and bonuses of $12.08 million, while they ask the taxpayers for more bail-out money. Mr. Edward DeMarco says that is the only way you can get good people to serve the country.

I am sure the men and women in the military would be interested to know that is what is required to serve. The base pay of a four-star general is $179,000. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court makes $223,000. But Mr. DeMarco feels people who are working at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac deserve $900,000, and millions of dollars in bonuses.

After all, they are doing such a great job.

The Alaska Native corporations is one of my favorites. We need to be especially mindful of how taxpayer dollars are appropriated. The Army Corps, in light of a recent Justice Department investigation, revealed what prosecutors called one of the largest bribery scandals in U.S. history involving Army Corps contracting officials and the contracting director of Eyak Technology, an ANC-owned company. In the authorization bill, we are trying to have all of these small business funding issues, no matter whether it be in an ANC or others, looked at.

And, of course, we won't be able to address the Solyndra issue. Private investors will collect the first $69 million that can be recovered from the company, with taxpayers placed in second position by the Department of Energy.

If we had been able to amend this bill, I would have worked with my colleague, Dr. Coburn, to restore much needed funding to the Government Accountability Office. In a recent report released by Dr. Coburn, he highlights that ``just this year GAO identified hundreds of billions of dollars of duplicative and overlapping programs that, if addressed by Congress, could both save money and improve services for taxpayers. For every $1 spent on the GAO, the agency provides $90 in savings recommendations. Yet, instead of adopting those good-government reforms, the Senate Appropriations Committee has responded by proposing dramatic budget cuts to the GAO.''

I don't want to go through all this pork that I just described again, but we can afford all that and yet we are going to cut the only watchdog organization that really gives us an objective view of what we do here in Congress. I am sure that it is a coincidence.

So here we are again. Here we are again, the same thing as last year, the same thing for years--a few Members of the House and Senate making decisions on hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps over $1 trillion, and we, the other Members, because of our desire--understandable--to leave this body and return to our homes for the holidays, after a few hours of debate, no amendments, no changes in the bill, not having had the ability to even examine it, we will be voting.

I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Oklahoma.

I would just mention, I say to my colleague from Oklahoma, the issue of this cutting of the budget of the Government Accountability Office. It seems rather strange to me. And I would be curious, with this cut to the Government Accountability Office, what will the effect be on our ability to have this watchdog organization give us the reports and information we need as far as the functions of government are concerned?

I would ask my colleague, I identified $3.5 billion unrequested, unauthorized, no-hearing-on projects--$3.5 billion. Since Dr. Coburn has taken a broader view of things, I wonder how many billions he would estimate totally there are of these unauthorized, unrequested projects in the entire bill.

May I also point out, as my colleague did, that all of us as Members of the Senate are guided to some degree by seniority, which means assignment and ranking in various committees. But we should have an equal opportunity to represent our constituents and our priorities and our views and our goals.

This document was signed by 37 Members of the House and 17 Members of the Senate, so really this system hands the important decisions that all 535 Members of the House and Senate are responsible for over to 37 in the House and 17 in the Senate. Neither the Senator from Oklahoma nor I had a single time to discuss with our colleagues all that is in this bill. Not a single time did we have a chance to say: Wait a minute, let's not put in that cultural repository for Guam. Not a single time did we have a chance to say: Hey, this Combat Dragon II is not really something we need to fund. You know, the Civil Air Patrol is really a great outfit, but we don't think we need to add $7 million in these difficult times. We think helicopters needed to be upgraded, but why should we add $25 million to helicopter upgrades when the military says we don't need $25 million for helicopter upgrades? This is what is wrong with this system.

So the system now has deteriorated to the point where these decisions are made--by the way, I would like to correct the record. There are 37 total Members in the House and Senate, so 37 out of 535 who would be making these decisions.

So we really are in a kind of situation where we come down and all we can do is complain about it. That seems to me a deprivation of all of us who are not in that group of 37 of the ability to make our input into the future of this country. I do not think the American people are going to stand for it too much longer. I really don't.

I say to my colleague, I think a couple of things are going to happen. I think in the next election--I say this to all my colleagues. I think in the next election no incumbent is safe. But I also say, one way or another there is going to be a third party in the political arena of the United States. We cannot keep doing these things, Republican and Democrat, without sooner or later a response by the very well-informed electorate--thanks to devices like this.

I believe we have done this long enough. For long enough the American people, who now are in more dire economic straits than they have been since the Great Depression, are fed up with spending a few million dollars on schoolbuses in Guam that have nothing to do with our Nation's defense.

I hope the Senator from Oklahoma will not give up. I certainly will not. But I think, frankly, the American people deserve a lot better than they are getting out of this process. If they are cynical and if they are angry and if they are frustrated, they have every reason to be so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, shortly we will begin debate on the conference report of the Defense authorization bill, the 50th year the Congress of the United States has authorized the equipment, the programs, and all that is necessary to defend this Nation's security.

I want to talk today about a very important aspect of our national security, and that is the problem we are having with out-of-control spending which has, in its own way, endangered our national security as almost any threat that we face. It is unsustainable, it is unacceptable, and it is a stain on our Nation's honor.

Fifty years ago, on January 17, 1961, Dwight David Eisenhower bid farewell to the Nation as the President of the United States. At the heart of his farewell address was a warning, one keenly insightful in its sense how, in a way new to the American experience, an immense military establishment and large arms industry had developed in the 20th century post-war period. While acknowledging the need for a strong national defense, President Eisenhower called for the American people to understand the grave implications of this new aggregation of political and industrial power. In particular he warned:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the

acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or

unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential

for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will

persist.

The 50th anniversary of President Eisenhower's address gives us an opportunity to carefully consider have we considered President Eisenhower's admonition. Regrettably and categorically the answer is no. In fact, the

military-industrial complex has become much worse than President Eisenhower originally envisioned. It has evolved to capture Congress. So the phenomenon should now rightly be called the military-industrial- congressional complex.

On July 16, 2009, in a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago, then- Secretary Gates described the military-industrial-congressional complex in this way:

First, there is the Congress, which is understandably

concerned . . . about protecting jobs in certain states and

congressional districts. There is the defense and aerospace

industry, which has an obvious financial stake in the

survival and growth of these programs. And there is the

institutional military itself--within the Pentagon, and as

expressed through an influential network of retired generals

and admirals. . . .

One aspect of the military-industrial-congressional complex I have focused on considerably over the last few years is its role in congressional earmarks, congressional pet projects, unwanted by the administration but amounting to billions of dollars annually that frequently take on a life of their own in a way that continues to waste taxpayer resources for years and sometimes decades. In the military- industrial-congressional complex, earmarks are the currency of corruption.

Another manifestation of the military-industrial-congressional complex I have called attention to is the revolving door that exists between the Pentagon and the defense industry. In 1969, then-Senator William Proxmire said this about the revolving door in the context of defense procurement:

The easy movement of high-ranking military officers into

jobs with major defense contractors and the reverse movement

of top executives in major defense contractors into high

Pentagon jobs is solid evidence of the military-industrial

complex in operation. It is a real threat to the public

interest because it increases the chances of abuse. . . . How

hard a bargain will officers involved in procurement planning

or specifications drive when they are one or two years from

retirement and have the example to look at over 2,000 fellow

officers doing well on the outside after retirement?

Probably the most recently publicized example of the revolving door between the Department of Defense and private industry and the prevalence of the military-industrial-congressional complex in the Department's planning and procurement processes is its mentorship program. In its most recent story in a series exposing this program, USA Today reported that the Air Force allowed a retired general officer who was then serving as an executive in the Boeing Company to participate as a mentor in a war game involving the aerial refueling tanker that Boeing was at the same time competing to build for the Air Force under a multibillion dollar procurement program. Over the last 2 years, I have exercised keen oversight of the mentorship program, which I understand has been essentially shut down under the weight of newly promulgated public disclosure requirements. In other words, former general and flag officers serving as Department mentors prefer to exit the program rather than publicly disclose their corporate affiliations and compensation.

I ask unanimous consent my most recent investigative letter on the issue be printed in the Record.

The aspect of the military-industrial-congressional complex I would like to focus on relates to how the Pentagon buys its very largest weapons systems. That covers the top 100 or so of the Defense Department's weapons procurement programs into which taxpayers have invested to date about $1.7 trillion. In particular, I would like to focus on how the military-industrial-congressional complex has kept even some of the most poorly performing programs funded, siphoning off precious resources even while they go over budget, face years of schedule delays, and fail to deliver promised capability to the war fighter.

To be clear, the military-industrial-congressional complex does not cause programs to fail, but it does help create poorly conceived programs, programs that are so fundamentally unsound that they are doomed to be poorly executed. It does help keep them alive long after they should have been ended or restructured.

By ``poorly conceived,'' I mean major programs that are allowed to begin, despite having insufficiently defined requirements, unrealistic cost or schedule estimates, immature technology or too much manufacturing and integration risk or unrealistic performance expectations.

By ``poorly executed,'' I am referring to programs that poorly perform because of, among other things, unanticipated design, engineering, manufacturing or technology problems. These sorts of programs should never have been started to begin with or should have been significantly restructured or terminated at the end of the day. Yet through the influence of the military-industrial-congressional complex, they are allowed to enter the defense procurement process and to persist, often under the guise of a concurrent development acquisition strategy and executed under cost-plus contracts.

Specifically, the military-industrial-congressional complex helps ensure that poorly conceived programs get on rails and stay there with production money when they are supposed to be still in development. For industry and many of their sponsors in the Pentagon and on the Hill, that is desirable because it is far more difficult to restructure or terminate a production program, even one that is performing poorly, than one that is in development. In the military-industrial- congressional complex, if excessive concurrency is a drug, then the cost-plus contracts used to facilitate it are its delivery vehicles.

Over the last decade or so, what I have described has resulted in a massive windfall for industry. But for the taxpayer and the war fighter, it has been an absolute recipe for disaster.

With the Federal budget deficit having hit $1.3 trillion for the 2011 budget year and facing the fact that the defense budget will likely not grow to any significant extent in the near term, we in Congress must be mindful of how the military-industrial-congressional complex can negatively affect decisions to buy and keep major weapons systems.

How does the military-industrial-congressional complex help create problem programs and keep them going long after they should have been canceled or restructured? A review of some of the problems with the original Air Force tanker lease deal is instructive. From that first attempt by the Air Force to replace its aging airborne tanker aircraft, which started nearly a decade ago, we now know, very early in the planning of a major defense acquisition program, senior officials from industry and the relevant services work with senior Members of Congress to ensure that the economic and therefore political benefits of the programs would be distributed widely among key congressional States or districts. That ensures long-term political buy-in and support.

How much could the military-industrial-congressional complex's negative influence ultimately cost taxpayers? Once again, consider the original tanker lease deal as just one example.

That deal would have had new aerial refueling aircraft developed under a cost-plus contract, which exposes the taxpayer to and protects the contractor from the negative impacts of cost overruns and schedule delays. Once developed, those new tanker aircraft were supposed to be leased--leased, not bought outright--from a sole-source contractor, as provided under a multibillion dollar earmark stuck in a defense appropriations bill, without having been vetted by the administration or reviewed by the relevant congressional oversight committees.

That unusual acquisition strategy was based on a case that the Air Force presented at that time, which the deal's congressional sponsor roundly endorsed, that the legacy fleet of tankers needed to be replaced urgently. Needless to say, that case was proven false. There can be no doubt that the original tanker lease deal was a classic creation of the military-industrial-congressional complex.

When we compare the likely costs of the sole-source tanker lease with the costs of the recently concluded tanker competition, which calls for fixed-price development and a purchase under full and open competition, the difference is dramatic. According to recent analysis by the Department of Defense, the original tanker lease deal would have, over the lifecycle of the aircraft, cost

taxpayers billions of dollars more for a less-capable airplane. Those billions that could have been lost under the original tanker lease deal are effectively the cost associated with the military-industrial- congressional complex when it is allowed to run unchecked and unchallenged, and they are, particularly in the current fiscal environment, utterly unsustainable.

The lesson of the original tanker lease deal is that the powerful combination of interests that comprise the military-industrial- congressional complex can be strong enough to both give birth to procurement programs that should never have been started in the first place and nurture programs that should have been killed or fundamentally restructured early on to the grave detriment of the taxpayer and our service men and women.

While over the last couple years former Secretary Gates ended some of the most poorly performing major programs in the defense enterprise, the situation remains serious. The new national military strategy calls the growing national debt a ``significant security risk,'' and as the Government Accountability Office noted in its March 2011 report, since 2008, the total acquisition costs of the Pentagon's major defense acquisitions programs in its current portfolio has increased by $135 billion, about half of which is attributed to pure cost growth and the other half due to cuts in the intended number of weapons we plan to buy.

It should not come as a surprise that as a result, about half the Pentagon's very largest weapons procurement programs exceed cost- performance goals agreed to by the Pentagon, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Government Accountability Office. In fact, the Government Accountability Office's March report found that about one- third of all major weapons systems since 1997 have had cost overruns of as much as 50 percent over their original projections.

Noting that ``the costs of developing and buying weapons have historically been, on average, 20 to 30 percent higher'' than Pentagon estimates, the Congressional Budget Office recently projected that in addition to health care, higher costs for weapons systems will increase the Pentagon budget by about $40 billion over the next 5 years.

Congress and current leadership at the Department of Defense have tried to attack these problems, but they have not been successful in changing the prevailing culture yet.

For example: After several attempts to change the Pentagon's buying approach--which, as CBO noted rarely, if ever, correctly predicts how much a program will likely cost--the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 created the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to analyze the cost of new programs and why they fail. It also required the Pentagon to keep closer tabs on technology maturity and emphasized testing new weapons before they entered production.

As a result of that act, some newer major programs are not making the mistake of relying on overly optimistic cost estimates provided by the contractor or staking too much production money too early--before critical technologies, design drawings, and manufacturing processes have stabilized and matured. But even this new law will be judged well only if the Pentagon can demonstrate some success with its largest acquisition programs, even those that went into development before the law's enactment.

The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter Program is a good example of one such program. Last week I spoke at length about this program, so today I will keep my remarks about it brief. Currently, the F-35 is the Pentagon's largest weapons procurement program. It was originally intended as a revolutionary, affordable solution to the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force's tactical aviation needs for the future. With three different versions of the aircraft for each service and commonality in design among those versions, the Pentagon sold this program as a fifth generation strike fighter that would--more so than any other major defense procurement program--be cost effectively developed, procured, operated, and supported.

According to the Pentagon, the program ``was structured from the beginning to be a model of acquisition reform.'' This has not been the case.

When the program was first launched, the Pentagon planned to buy over 3,000 Joint Strike Fighters, but the development effort was performed so poorly that we can now only afford to buy 2,457. Given recent delays in restructuring rules, that number could go down further. To date, the total cost to buy all of the aircraft as intended has grown by about $150 billion to $385 billion. The cost of each Joint Strike Fighter is now 80 percent over the original baseline estimate, and that is expected to increase. It would be hard to buy a car at 80 percent over the original sticker price without looking for major tradeoffs.

Currently, the Joint Strike Fighter costs an average of about $133 million each, and that is without an engine. We have invested about $56 billion in R&D costs in this project through fiscal year 2010.

Over the nearly 10-year life of the F-35 program, Congress has authorized and appropriated funds for 135 of these aircraft. But as of today, the program has delivered just 20 flying aircraft with most of them being used for testing. Early production aircraft just started to be delivered a few months ago--3 years late.

The main problem with the program has been this: Before the Pentagon went all in on the F-35 program, it never understood the risk associated with developing and integrating the F-35's critical technologies and manufacturing each version of the plane, much less how much money and time would be needed to overcome these risks. So ever since the Pentagon awarded Lockheed Martin a contract to develop the Joint Strike Fighter contract in 2001, and despite having signed several follow-on contracts for blocks of production aircraft, the program has effectively been stuck in development. Experts call what the Pentagon has been trying to do ``concurrent development.'' I call it a mess.

Using a concurrent development strategy to procure high-risk weapon systems that promise generational leaps in capability when, one, their underlying design is unstable; two, the risks associated with developing their critical technologies and integration are not fully known; and, three, their manufacturing processes are immature is a very bad idea. Trying to do this under cost-plus contracts is a recipe for disaster.

In July 2011, the Department revealed that the cost for the first three lots of early production aircraft amounting to 28 aircraft bought under cost-plus contracts exceeded by about $1 billion the original estimate of about $7 billion. The Department also indicated that the taxpayers' share of this overrun amounted to $771 million. The program's prime contractor would absorb approximately $283 million. By the way, that program's prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, declared record profits of $3 billion last year.

Moreover, just a few days ago, the Department indicated the cost of the fourth lot of the early production aircraft bought for the first time in the program's history under a fixed-price-type contract may be as high as 10 percent over that contract's $3.46 billion target cost. This is a $350 million overrun with only about 40 percent of that work completed to date. This suggests the costs of the program have still not been contained despite 2 years of concentrated effort by the Pentagon to bring costs under control.

Just last week the executive officer of the Joint Strike Fighter Program indicated in a media interview that the Joint Strike Fighter Program needs to slow down production and deliveries of the aircraft. He attributed this to the need to open the aircraft and install fixes to numerous structural cracks in ``hot spots'' that the program has discovered in the plane over the last year or so. He estimated the work needed to remedy these cracks could add an additional $3 million to $5 million per aircraft.

From these comments, I understand the overlap between development and production, called ``concurrency,'' that persists in the program is still too great to assure taxpayers they will not have to continue paying for costly redesigns or retrofits due to discoveries late in production.

My frustration--and, more importantly, the taxpayers' frustration--

with the chronic failure of this program to deliver required combat capability on time and on schedule cannot be overstated. This frustration is conveyed well in a provision in the conference report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would require that the sixth lot of early production aircraft be procured on a firm fixed-price basis. Apparently, the fixed-price contract used for the fourth lot, which provides the overruns between a ``target cost'' and ``ceiling price'' be shared between the government and prime contractor is failing to incentivize the contractor to control its costs, so tougher measures are warranted. We should all hope they work.

Another example is the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the EFV. The Marine Corps and General Dynamics originally promised that the EFV was going to be the most advanced and operationally effective amphibious assault vehicle ever produced. It was originally designed to be an over-the-horizon platform to protect the Navy ships from mines and shore-based missiles and maximize our flexibility and the enemy's difficulty in planning a defense.

The EFV was intended to be capable of being launched from a ship up to 25 miles away from shore and speed to a landing zone at 25 knots. Once ashore, the EFV would then be able to travel at speeds equal to those of the Abrams tank. The Marines were originally supposed to buy over 1,000 of these vehicles, which were to be initially operable by 2010, at a total cost of $7.3 billion. Needless to say, things did not turn out that way.

Prototypes of the EFV were tested and were about 1,900 pounds too heavy and blew past original cost estimates for research and development. Testing also revealed significant problems in terms of limited visibility, excessive noise, breakdowns in the loading system of the 30-millimeter gun, and concerns about the hull's vulnerability to IED attacks.

From its start in 1996 to about 2007, the Marine Corps and General Dynamics said, ``Don't worry.'' But at the end of the day, the program's cost rose by 55 percent to over $14 billion, and initial capability was pushed back to 2016. At the start of this year, the cost of each EFV was expected to be as much as $23 million, and the estimated cost to operate and maintain the vehicle went up with the increase in that price.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps estimated that the EFV would consume over 90 percent of the Marine Corps' total ground combat vehicle budget. Against that backdrop, former Secretary Gates and the Commandant called for this program to be terminated. Unfortunately, the taxpayers had invested about $3 billion and the Marine Corps had waited 15 years for an improved amphibious vehicle that simply became too costly to buy.

Another example of a legacy acquisition program in trouble is the V- 22 Osprey. Inspired by the failure to rescue hostages from Iran in 1980, the V-22 was originally designed to be a revolution in vertical takeoff aircraft. It was intended to improve, beyond anything currently in the arsenal, the ability of the Marine Corps' and our Special Forces' capability to get in, get out, and resupply from long range at high speeds in hostile landing zones.

What we ended up with has been great expectations and enormous costs. Since it was first deployed, the Marine Corps' version of the V-22 has had a mission-capable rate in the middle to high 60-percent range as compared to the latest version of the Army's heavy-lift helicopters, the CH-47s, which had readiness rates in the high eighties to low nineties. During its recent deployment in Afghanistan, in fact, the V- 22's engine saw a service life of just above 200 hours, well short of the 500 to 600 hours that the program's managers originally estimated. That has caused the cost-per-flying hour to more than double to over $10,000 an hour as compared to about $4,600 per hour for the much older CH-46 it was intended to replace or about $2,600 per hour for a new, modern MH-60 Blackhawk helicopter.

When it is not being repaired, the V-22 performs its missions impressively, but the sustainment cost of keeping the V-22 flying is eating up the Marine Corps' budget and causing aircraft maintainers to work much harder than should be required for a brandnew aircraft. While the V-22 program was supposed to cost just over $39 billion, independent estimates are that it will come in at $56 billion, a 43- percent increase.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 additional minutes.

The price per aircraft has risen by 186 percent from $42.8 million to $122.5 million. You will notice this hybrid helicopter airplane's unit cost is approaching that of the troubled F-35 priced at about $133 million a copy, as I mentioned earlier. But the budget- strapped Marine Corps may have to afford both of them.

Recently, the Marine Corps conceded that over the last 3 years, the lifetime cost of operating its V-22 aircraft had increased 64 percent to $121.5 billion.

I want to talk about military space procurement for a minute. They are among the most notorious for chronically performing poorly.

The Space-Based Infrared System program is a particularly good example. It has been a problem since its inception in 1996. In fact, 5 years into the program--in 2001--an independent review cited the program as ``too immature to enter the system design and development phase'' and observed that the program was based on faulty and overly optimistic assumptions with respect to, among other things, ``management stability and the level of understanding requirements.''

That was 2001, when it was determined that total program costs could exceed $2 billion--a 70-percent increase in cost. And, here we are today, 10 years later, and the system has still not achieved its objectives. In fact, it was just launched, for the first time, recently, on May 7, 2011.

Originally estimated to cost $2.4 billion, it is now expected to cost nearly $16 billion, roughly 7 times the initial estimate.

The Defense Department reported to Congress recently that the next pair of these satellites built by Lockheed Martin could cost $438 million more than previously estimated and could be delivered a year late. Many of the space programs are facing these same kinds of overruns.

In the area of military space procurement, the Air Force's Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite is worth mentioning. This system of satellites is supposed to replenish the existing Milstar system with more robust and secure communication capabilities for strategic and tactical warfighters. While the first of six of these was launched in August 2010, glitches with its thruster delayed the satellite from reaching its planned orbit by more than a year and significantly affected when the other two satellites will launch. In connection with how the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin Space Systems, has performed on this program, the Air Force penalized Lockheed Martin by reducing its award fee under the contract by $15 million.

One space acquisition program I have focused on is the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program. Largely because of lack of competition and the Department's reliance on a sole incumbent provider, by some estimates EELV's costs may increase by more than 50 percent over the next 5 years.

I don't want to overlook the Army. Among all services the Army has had the poorest record of pumping billions of dollars into weapons systems that were never deployed. A recent Army study indicated that since 1995, almost 40 percent of research dollars the Army spent did not result in the procurement of any product. The Army spent at least $32 billion on development, testing, and evaluation of 22 weapons programs that were later canceled--almost a third of its budget for creating new weapons. Every year since 1995, the Army has spent $1 billion on doomed programs. Since 2004, canceled Army programs have consumed between $3.3 billion and $3.8 billion. This represents an average of 35 to 45 percent of the Army's annual budget for development, testing, and engineering when factoring in the cancellation of the hugely expensive Future Combat Systems Program.

This brings us right to the FCS Program. To say that this program was a spectacular, shameful failure would not do it justice. First envisioned in 1999 by then-Army Chief of Staff GEN Eric Shinseki, FCS was intended to be a revolution in capability--the centerpiece in the Army's effort to transform

itself into a lighter, more modular, and more deployable fighting force. Originally and erroneously executed under a type of contract more fitting for smaller programs, the FCS was supposed to develop 18 manned and unmanned ground systems, including sensors, robots, UAVs, and vehicles, all connected by a complicated mobile electronic network. When work began on this program in 2000, the Army estimated that the first combat units would be equipped by 2011 and that all the Army's ground combat formations would be equipped by 2032. The Army initially estimated the entire effort would cost about $160 billion.

By 2006, independent cost estimators at the Pentagon pegged total procurement costs at upwards of $300 billion. And, from there, with the assistance of a fundamentally flawed fee structure that was not focused on objective results, FCS total costs kept growing. To make a long story short, in April 2009, then-Secretary Gates terminated most of the program and the problem.

While the Army has had its problems, the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship is another example of a fundamentally flawed acquisition process. Originally conceived by former Chief of Naval Operations Vern Clark as a revolutionary, new, affordable class of surface combatant--about the size of a light frigate or Coast Guard cutter--the LCS was to be able to conduct shallow-water and near-shore operations.

The first two LCS contracts set the cost of the sea frame at $188 million each. After spiking to over $730 million, the cost is now about $400 million per hull. In December of 2010, the Pentagon's chief tester gave LCS poor performance ratings, saying that ``LCS is not expected to be survivable in terms of maintaining a mission capability in a hostile combat environment.''

I continue to be very troubled by the Navy's decision late last year to set aside then-pending competition and award contracts to each of the bidders on this program.

The F-22 raptor program. The F-22 was supposed to maintain air superiority in the face of the Soviet threat during the Cold War. The F-22 obtained full operational capability 20 years later, well after the Soviet Union dissolved. When it finally emerged from its extended testing and development phase, the F-22 was recognized as a very capable tactical fighter, probably the best in the world for some time to come. But plagued with development and technical issues that caused the costs of buying to go through the roof, not only was the F-22 20 years in the making, but the process has proved so costly that the Pentagon could ultimately afford only 187 of the planes rather than the 750 it originally planned to buy. To make a long story short, the F-22 has not flown in combat since its inception.

The DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer was supposed to cost $1.1 billion each. It is now expected to cost $3.5 billion each.

The Airborne Laser effort is to be canceled. The fantastic story of the VH-71 new Presidential Helicopter Replacement Program was canceled only after it became more expensive than a full-size 747.

What can we do?

I know it is time for us to get on with the Defense authorization bill.

We need to have transparency. We need to have accountability. We have to use competition to encourage industry to produce desired outcomes and better incentivize the acquisition workforce to do more with less. We have to do a lot of things. We have clearly failed to abide by the warning President Eisenhower issued in his speech 50 years ago, but I do find some comfort that times of fiscal restraint and austerity can drive desired change, even in the face of daunting systemic obstacles such as the military-industrial-congressional complex. We must do better.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank my friend from Michigan for his indulgence.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC, December 1, 2011.

Hon. Leon Panetta,

Secretary of Defense,

Pentagon, Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Panetta: I was very troubled to read

recently in USA Today that the Air Force allowed a retired

general officer who was then-serving as an executive in The

Boeing Company to participate as a ``mentor'' in a war game

involving the aerial refueling tanker that Boeing was at the

same time competing to build for the Air Force under a

multibillion dollar procurement program. This, in my view,

warrants serious inquiry.

According to the article, the retired general officer

previously served as the chief of U.S. Transportation Command

and Air Force Mobility Command, which would have given him

keen insight into the Air Force's plans to replace its aerial

refueling tanker fleet. It appears that what this mentor did

for the Air Force in this case directly related to one of

Boeing's largest potential contracts with the Air Force. This

makes the story particularly alarming. No less disturbing is

that the Air Force apparently withheld publicly disclosing

this information from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

request for approximately two years.

This latest revelation plainly validates my concerns that I

conveyed last year about the potential for conflicts-of-

interests associated with military mentor programs. It is

also another example of the revolving door between the

Department and private industry and the prevalence of the

military-industrial complex in the Department's planning and

procurement processes, which has plagued the Air Force's

attempts to replace its aerial refueling tanker fleet from

day-one.

Although there appears to be general comfort that the

contract for the KC-46A was awarded properly and that the

contracting strategy for the development of these tankers is

viable, whether any misconduct somehow biased the program at

its inception towards a particular outcome must be taken very

seriously.

With this in mind, please answer the following questions.

1. After the individual cited in the article, retired

Lieutenant General Charles Robertson, retired from the Air

Force, during what period of time did he serve as an advisor,

consultant or mentor, or in any other similar capacity, to

the Air Force?

2. Describe, with specificity, General Robertson's duties,

responsibilities and activities while serving in the

foregoing capacity during this period.

3. Identify, with specificity, what project(s) General

Robertson served on in the foregoing capacity, including but

not limited to, as a mentor.

4. Describe, with specificity, what relationship these

projects had with any program or process in which Boeing had

a direct or indirect interest.

5. Describe, with specificity, the activity cited in the

article described above (i.e., a ``war game'') and what

relationship, if any, that this activity had with the pending

Air Force program to replace its aerial refueling tanker

fleet.

6. Describe what was happening with the Air Force's program

to replace its aerial refueling tanker fleet while the

foregoing activity was conducted.

7. What direct or indirect input or influence did General

Robertson have in the outcome of the activity for which he

was serving as a mentor (or in any similar capacity) or the

overall program or process that this activity was intended to

support?

8. How much per year and in total compensation was General

Robertson paid for his service as an advisor, consultant or

mentor, or in any other similar capacity, to the Air Force?

9. Please provide a copy of his employment contract(s) with

the Air Force for his service in the foregoing capacity.

10. Explain why it reportedly took two years to provide the

information described above where this information was

responsive to a properly presented FOIA request.

11. What is the current status or the Department of

Defense's mentor program?

12. If the program is still extant at all, what controls

are in place today that will ensure against conflicts-of-

interests and the appearance of impropriety by its

participants?

Thank you for your cooperation and your attention to this

serious matter.

Sincerely,

John McCain,

Ranking Member.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I fully support the conference report and the national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2012. This is the 50th year the Congress will pass this, and I am now confident this bill will be signed into law by the President of the United States.

It is an important piece of legislation. I appreciate the participation of all Members, as we went through this bill in a relatively short period of time. There certainly was a lot of participation by almost every Member.

I am most appreciative, of course, of Senator Levin, whom I have had the honor of serving with for many years. Quite often we have spirited discussions on various issues, but my admiration and appreciation for his leadership is very large. He is a man of incredible patience--a quality some accuse me of lacking, I think correctly.

Senator Levin and his staff and our staff work very closely together throughout the year as we bring forth this Defense authorization bill. Obviously this bill provides for defense policy guidance and funding that is vital to our national security, provides the clearest indication to our men and women in uniform that the Congress cares about them and their families.

In testament to the importance of this legislation, as I mentioned, we have passed a defense authorization bill every year since 1961.

Let me remind my colleagues of the hard work that went into this bill. The bill is a product of 11 months of legislative effort in the Senate, 71 hearings and meetings on the full range of national security priorities. We reported our bill out of the committee with a 26-to-0 vote. We debated nearly 40 hours, disposed of 139 amendments, and the bill was overwhelmingly passed 93 to 7. After Senate passage on December 1, our staffs have worked around the clock for 9 days to put this together.

As Senator Levin mentioned, it authorizes $662.4 billion for national defense, which is $26.6 billion less than the President's request. It authorizes $530 billion for the base budget for the Department of Defense, and it goes on. We authorize a 6-percent increase in funding over last year's request for our special operations forces, who play a lead role in counterterrorism operations. We authorize over $2.4 billion to counter improvised explosive device activities. The IEDs still plague the men and women who are serving in Afghanistan.

Let me also mention some noteworthy provisions in this legislation.

The conference report includes strong, unambiguous language that recognizes that the war on terror extends to us at home and that we must address it as such. The language the Senate adopted regarding detainees recognizes both that we must treat enemy combatants who seek to do us harm as such and that we must be able to gain as much information from such individuals as possible regarding their plans to wage war against our citizens--I want to emphasize--without violating the rules of war, without violating the Geneva Conventions, without engaging in torture or waterboarding or any of the kinds of techniques that have stained America's honor in the 21st century.

I strongly believe the detainee provisions in the bill are constitutional and in no way infringe upon the rights of law-abiding Americans. Unfortunately, rarely in my time have I seen legislation so consistently misunderstood and misrepresented as these detainee provisions. The hyperbole used by both the left and the right regarding this language is false and misleading.

Let me be clear. The language in this bill will not affect any Americans engaging in the pursuits of their constitutional rights. The language does recognize that those people who seek to wage war against the United States will be stopped, and we will use all ethical, moral, and legal methods to do so.

I am very pleased that the administration has finally recognized that the language we have adopted merits the President's signature and will soon be signed into law. While we have made some technical changes to the detainee provisions, they remain substantially the same as passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The Congress, in strong bipartisan majorities, especially in the Committee on Armed Services, is deeply concerned by the administration's flawed handling of detainees in the fight against terrorism.

It was Congress that took up this vital national security issue and drafted all the versions of these provisions and led the negotiations on all of the major compromises. Yes, we listened to the administration's concerns, as we should, and we took many of them into account. Unfortunately, the administration has fought these provisions every step of the way. They tried to have these provisions stripped from the Senate bill as a condition for bringing it to the floor for debate. When that did not work, they tried to have these provisions dropped from the bill through amendments on the floor. When that did not work, they urged the conferees to drop these provisions in conference or at least water them down into nothingness. Again and again, the administration failed. So for them now to try to claim credit for these provisions flies in the face of the historical record. Facts are stubborn, and when it comes to these detainee provisions, the fact is this: Congress has led and defined the debate, and the administration has finally conceded to that reality.

Let's establish once again what these detainee provisions do and do not do.

They would, among other things, reaffirm the military's existing authority to detain individuals captured in the course of hostilities conducted pursuant to the authorization of the use of military force.

The ``authority to detain provision'' in the conference report confirms that nothing in this section of the bill should be ``construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.'' There could be nothing clearer than that statement.

This confirmation of the intent of the bill was inserted as a result of floor debate and negotiations with the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, to make absolutely clear what Chairman Levin and I and members of the committee who have supported this legislation have said throughout--that this provision does not and is not intended to change the existing state of the law with regard to detention of U.S. citizens. This section simply restates the authority to detain what has already been upheld by the Federal courts. We are not expanding or limiting the authority to detain as established by the 2001 authorization for the use of military force.

The conference report also includes a provision requiring military detention for foreign al-Qaida terrorists who attack the United States--something this administration has been not only hesitant but completely unwilling to even consider until this legislation highlighted the inconsistency between claiming the authority to kill an al-Qaida member with drones overseas but not being willing to hold a captured al-Qaida member in military custody in the United States, even in a situation where the al-Qaida terrorist had penetrated our defenses and had carried out or attempted an attack inside the United States.

The authority to hold al-Qaida members in military custody, while completely consistent with the law of war that applies to enemy combatants, is not a straitjacket but is as flexible as the President desires to make it.

While we in Congress have given the President a statutory authority to use military custody for al-Qaida members as a tool to ensure that we are able to obtain timely, actionable intelligence, the President can exercise a broad national security waiver to this requirement--a broad national security waiver. Most important, this provision requiring military detention explicitly excludes U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens.

The military custody provision in the final compromise authorizes the transfer of any detainee to civilian custody for trial in civilian court and leaves it up to the President to establish procedures for determining how and when persons determined to be subject to military custody would be transferred. The provision adopted in the conference report requires that such determination must not interfere with ongoing intelligence, surveillance, or interrogation operations.

All of this flexibility was added to the bill even before we began negotiations with the White House to make it clear that the intent of the Senate's provisions was not to tie the administration's hands but to give them additional means to defeat the most serious type of threat from al-Qaida to our country. The result of these Senate modifications to the original form of the provisions ensures that the executive branch has complete flexibility in how it first determines and then how it applies military custody for al-Qaida members who are captured after having attacked the United States or while planning or attempting such an attack.

Moreover, after meeting with FBI Director Robert Mueller, the Senate conferees added language in conference in response to his concerns about the impact on FBI operations confirming that nothing in this provision may be ``construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or any other domestic law enforcement agency, with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.''

It is the intent of the Senate conferees, in agreement with House colleagues on a bipartisan basis, that the FBI continue to execute the full range of its investigative and counterterrorism responsibilities and that any shift to military custody will be an administrative measure that does not limit in any way the FBI's authority.

I acknowledge that these issues were very controversial with some Members. These provisions were debated extensively--as thoroughly as any matter I have seen in recent memory--but I believe we have addressed in a positive way and have been responsive to concerns raised by the administration. Indeed, the Senate made changes both on the floor and during conference to ensure that the intent of the provisions was fully understood by the administration and others even before negotiations over the final form of the text began.

In many ways, as Chairman Levin has pointed out in many of his public statements and speeches on these detainee provisions, rarely has such misinformation, speculation, and outright misrepresentation been greater over what a bill actually does compared to what some from the left and right claim it does than has been the case with these detainee provisions. Whether 2012 campaign politics played a role in the characterization of these provisions or whether this was simply a case of not fully understanding the intent of the authors of these provisions I will leave to others to decide.

I point out again that I think my friend from Michigan Senator Levin displayed a great deal of courage in formulating what he thought was best for our Nation's security.

Regardless of the motivation that may have colored the debate until now, I believe that, by any responsible reading, these provisions will not impair the flexibility of the President or national security officials in protecting the United States and its citizens. The military custody provision, which has been the focus of much of this debate, provides flexibility to use either a civilian track or a military track for custody and eventual trial and leaves the details of implementation in the hands of the executive branch, as it is appropriate to do so. It preserves the current state of the law as it applies to the rights of U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens.

In terms of FBI authority to conduct investigations and interrogations, as well as use other instruments of the investigative and criminal process, these provisions preserve all of the FBI's role and authority under existing law.

The conference report also includes, virtually unchanged, the Senate provision requiring a plan to normalize U.S. defense cooperation with Georgia and the sale of defensive weapons. U.S. defense cooperation with the Republic of Georgia has been stalled ever since Russia invaded that country 3 years ago. While there has been slow and minor progress to enable Georgia's armed forces to deploy to Afghanistan--which they have done in greater numbers than most of our NATO allies--precious little has been done to strengthen Georgia's ability to defend its government, people, and territory.

This provision would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to develop a plan for the normalization of our defense cooperation with Georgia, especially the reestablishment of U.S. sales of defensive weapons. It puts the Congress on record as demanding a more normal U.S. defense relationship with Georgia, particularly on defensive arms sales.

The conference report includes a strong and important provision to sanction the Central Bank of Iran, to curtail Iran's ability to buy and sell petroleum through its Central Bank, and to prevent foreign financial institutions that deal with the Central Bank of Iran from continuing their access to the U.S. financial system. This provision, which was adopted on the Senate floor by a vote of 100 to 0, and the attempted assassination of the Saudi Ambassador here in Washington, DC, had a very positive and forceful effect on this bill being enacted by the Senate. This provision would force foreign financial institutions to make an important choice: Do they want to deal with the U.S. economy or with Iran's Central Bank?

The Treasury Department urged the conferees to make a series of changes to this provision, some of which would have narrowed its scope and weakened

it. We rejected that course of action. We made some minor technical changes but kept the provision as the authors, Senators Menendez and Kirk, intended. The conferees did, however, provide the Treasury Department the ability to more effectively implement this legislation by imposing strict conditions on foreign financial institutions that maintain ties to the Central Bank of Iran.

The conference report directs the Secretary of Defense to pause further spending on Guam in support of the relocation of 8,500 U.S. marines from Okinawa until Congress and the administration have had an opportunity to review and assess the impact of an estimated $20 billion spending initiative on Guam in the context of the full range of our national interests in the Pacific region. This pause will allow Congress to ensure that the taxpayer funds invested in overseas military force posture and basing will afford us the best opportunity to continue our strong alliances in the region, while pursuing new arrangements with emerging partners that support security and economic development.

The final agreed-upon provision includes a requirement for an independent study to offer views and suggestions from a range of regional experts on current and emerging U.S. national security interests in the Pacific and options for the realignment of U.S. military forces in the region. The conference report would restrict the use of $33 million in operation and maintenance funds for items on Guam that do not directly support military requirements, such as civilian schoolbuses, the construction of museums, and mental health facilities.

This provision should not be interpreted as a lack of U.S. commitment to realignment. The President has stated that we are shifting a lot of our attention to the Pacific region, and we understand the importance of the Pacific region in the 21st century.

Finally, the conference report includes a provision to require that the contract for the sixth slot of ``low-rate initial production'' for the Joint Strike Fighter be executed on a firm fixed-price basis. The Pentagon has thus far failed to incentivize the prime contractor to control costs. So a tougher measure, as embodied in the report, is warranted.

While I would have preferred the original Senate position that would have made the fixed-price requirement apply to the fifth lot currently being negotiated, I strongly support this provision. The chairman and I are committed to a close monitoring of this weapons system. We understand its importance. We also understand that the kinds of cost overruns that have characterized this system cannot be continued.

I am gratified that there are no earmarks in this bill. Unfortunately, it still contains over $1.4 billion in spending that was never requested by the President or by our military and civilian leaders in the Pentagon. Examples of funding authorized by this conference report include $255 million for additional M-1 tank upgrades the Army didn't want in order to keep the M-1 production line hot despite no compelling need to upgrade more tanks at this time; $325 million for Army National Guard and Reserve equipment not requested by the Army; $8.5 million for an Air Force R&D program called the Metals Affordability Initiative that the Air Force didn't consider a high enough priority to fund; $30 million for an industrial base innovation fund that the Pentagon didn't ask for; $200 million for the Rapid Innovation Program--created by Congress in last year's Defense authorization bill--that the Pentagon never asked for and which has about $439 million in funds left over from last year it hasn't figured out how to spend.

The bottom line is this: Congress will pump over $1.4 billion into things the Pentagon never requested and didn't think were a priority. The American taxpayers are not fooled by this exercise, and they have long ago lost patience with it. For all the many good things this conference report did, we still fell short of providing only the most essential needs and priorities of the Department of Defense as identified by our civilian and military leaders. A total of $1.4 billion is real money and could make an enormous difference to many Americans if properly applied to real priorities.

Those criticisms aside, as we look forward to the holidays ahead, I want all Senators to think about whom this report is really for--the men and women of our Armed Forces, who have served our Nation so bravely and so selflessly during the past 10 years of war. We owe it to them to pass this bill to demonstrate our support for them and the burden they carry for all of us and to show in a concrete way that the American people and the Congress stand with them and appreciate what they do for us. Passing this bill is really the very least we can do for so many who are willing to give all they have to defend us and our great country.

Finally, I thank Chairman Levin and Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their dedication and cooperation in getting through the conference in a rapid but comprehensive and collegial manner. It is an honor to work with Senator Levin on such an important cause for the American people and for our men and women serving around the world in the Department of Defense, who risk their lives for us every day. They deserve positive action and your vote on this conference report.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the conference report of the fiscal year 2012 national defense authorization bill.

Madam President, I say to my friend from Michigan, I guess in our many years together we have seen the ups and downs and back and forth, but during our more than a quarter of a century of service we have always seen the bill coming to fruition and we have carried on in that tradition.

I wish also to point out to my colleagues, in a rather drab and dreary landscape of gridlock and acrimony, it is kind of nice to show that every once in a while there is a little ray of sunshine. So I hope we have been able to provide it for our colleagues, and I look forward to a unanimous, if not near unanimous, vote on the part of this body.

I hope if there are other colleagues who wish to come and speak on the bill--I know we have planned a colloquy on a provision of the bill concerning depots--so, hopefully, our colleagues who are very concerned about that issue might want to arrange to come to the floor so we can dispose of that.

I don't know of any other except, I think, Senator Udall, who wishes to come.

I happen to know for a fact that Senator Hagan is a strong defender of the men and women who serve her State, which has a very large military presence. I know they are very appreciative of her advocacy and service.

Before we get too hokey around here, maybe we should suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes. That was the intention of the provision we wrote in committee, and it has been clarified by the addition of subsection (d). The statement of managers specifically states that the law enforcement and national security tools that are not affected by the provision include, but are not limited to, grand jury subpoenas, national security letters, and actions pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Yes. Our forces in Afghanistan can continue to transfer detainees to the host nation in accordance with existing agreements. This provision does not apply to battlefield transfers in--Afghanistan.

Madam President, for the benefit of my colleagues, there is a bit of interesting news today. When the demonstrations began in Moscow, I tweeted--I am a big believer in tweets--and said, ``Dear Vlad, the Arab Spring is coming to a neighborhood near you.''

Apparently, Mr. Putin was not amused, because an Associated Press headline read: ``Putin rejects any redo of fraud-tainted vote.'' The article also mentioned he was apparently on a program where he answered some questions. To quote the article:

The harsh comments and his insistence that the December 4

election was valid will likely fuel anger and may draw even

bigger crowds of protest later this month.

Putin also lashed out at U.S. Senator John McCain, who had

goaded him with a Twitter post saying ``the Arab Spring is

coming to a neighborhood near you.''

Quoting Putin now, the article continues:

``He has the blood of peaceful civilians on his hands, and

he can't live without the kind of disgusting, repulsive

scenes like the killing of Gadhafi,'' Putin said, referring

to McCain's role as a combat pilot and prisoner of war in

Vietnam.

He went on to say:

``Mr. McCain was captured and they kept him not just in

prison, but in a pit for several years,'' he said. ``Anyone

(in his place) would go nuts.''

I know my friend from Michigan may think there is some veracity to the last sentence from Putin's comments, but I would mention that, in the context of the National Defense bill, in my view, the reset with Russia has not gone as we had hoped and it is an argument for some missile defense provisions in this bill in particular.

I think the reason why Mr. Putin reacted in the way he did is that I believe he has been shaken, as he should have been, by the massive demonstrations that have taken place in Moscow and other cities in Russia. It will be very interesting on December 24 to see how large or whether there will be demonstrations concerning a government that in many ways has turned into a cryptocracy, and the abuse of human rights, including the case of Mr. Magnitsky, who died in prison; and Mr. Khodorkovsky, who was again sentenced to more time in prison, and what Mr. Khodorkovsky and others have described as a death sentence.

These are very interesting times in which we live, and the world is a very interesting place. I think it argues for the United States of America to maintain its defenses, as we have in the consideration of this bill.

Mr. President, I join the chairman in the acknowledgment that many Members of the Senate have concerns with both the process and substance of the changes adopted in the Defense authorization conference report regarding statutes for depot activities in the Department of Defense. The protection of a core logistics capability within the Department has been a very controversial issue for many years, as the Department's depot enterprise employs over 77,000 personnel with an annual operating budget exceeding $30 billion. As we draw down from two wars which have consumed so much in resources and equipment, there will be much concern and debate about the continued workload and jobs at depots, shipyards, and arsenals, particularly in light of declining defense budgets.

I agree this debate and deliberation should have included all interested parties. While I support legislation that would have the clear intent of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department's industrial activities, I was not and am not in support of moving forward on changes that have not been addressed with all members of the committee. The concerns expressed to us by Senator Inhofe, Senator Chambliss, Senator Collins, Senator Ayotte, Senator Shaheen, and others need to be reviewed in an open and transparent process.

As to the substance of the concerns, from what I can tell, there are opinions on the impact of these two provisions on both sides of the issue--from private industry and from the depots and their government civilian workers and unions.

I am aware some are very concerned that the changes in the conference report will upset the balance currently maintained between public and private performance of these activities, which could affect readiness. Changes to the definition of depot-level maintenance and repair have the potential to result in the shift of workload at shipyards. Changes to this provision should not be construed to restrict competition or to create any incentive to favor the public or the private sector as it relates to acquisition programs.

The narrowing of the statutes from core logistics to corps depot- level maintenance could be interpreted as congressional intent to eliminate the identification of core activities in the defense supply chain affecting arsenals and ammunition plants.

On the other hand, the inclusion of an expansive waiver provided to the Secretary of Defense to waive core requirements is very unsettling for every depot activity. Such a waiver could move significant amounts of depot work to the private sector.

Revisions to the definitions of ``commercial items'' to be exempted from core determinations could have an immediate detrimental impact to those depots that work on commercially available items of equipment, such as engines and transmissions of ground combat vehicles.

So many depots that do this sort of work are concerned about the impact. I agree we need to fully understand the impacts, real and unintended, from the implementation of these provisions. We will need to work closely with the Department of Defense to ensure that whatever changes or repeals we make are in the best interests of our military with the priority placed on readiness as well as efficiency of operations and fiscal responsibility.

I support the chairman and commit to giving this issue focused attention in the year ahead to ensure the measures taken in this year's bill are the right outcome for the Department of Defense and the taxpayers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that MAJ James Long, an Air Force fellow in Senator Thune's office, be granted floor privileges during today's and tomorrow's sessions of the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Today the President of the United States traveled to Ft. Bragg, NC, to mark the end of the war in Iraq and to pay tribute to the more than 12.5 million men and women of our Armed Forces who have served and fought there since 2003. Those Americans deserve all of the praise and recognition they receive, for they have given up their comfort and safety. They have given up less demanding and more lucrative jobs. They have given parts of their bodies and cherished parts of their lives. They have given the quiet little sacrifices that often go unmentioned but often hurt the most: the anniversaries spent alone, the birth of a child missed, the first steps not seen, and the first words not heard.

They have given all of that, and always they are prepared to give more. They deserve to be honored by us all. I know the President's words of praise and appreciation for our troops today were sincere and heartfelt. I have every reason to believe he will do all in his power to keep his promises to take care of our troops and their families at home and to never forget how those noble Americans have done far more than their fair share for the betterment of our Nation.

The President is a patriot and a good American, and I know his heart swells with the same pride and sense of awe all of us feel when we are in the presence of our men and women in uniform. These are humbling feelings, feelings of wonderment and gratitude, and they unite all Americans whether they supported the war in Iraq or not.

But let me point out a fact the President did not acknowledge today, which is this: Our men and women in uniform have been able to come home from Iraq by the tens of thousands over the past 3 years, and not just come home but come home with honor having succeeded in their mission for the simple reason that the surge worked.

All of this is possible because in 2007, with the war nearly lost, we changed our strategy, changed our leaders in the field, and sent more troops. This policy was vehemently opposed at the time by then-Senator Obama and now President of the United States and his senior leaders right here on the floor of this Senate.

On January 10, 2007, the day the surge strategy was announced, then- Senator Obama said:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is

going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think

it will do the reverse.

On November 15, 2007, when it was clear to GEN David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker and many of us that the surge was working, then-Senator Obama said:

The overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any

change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders.

Finally, on January 28, 2008, when it was undeniable the surge was succeeding, he had this to say:

President Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when

we know that's just not true.

At the time the President's preferred alternative was to begin an immediate withdrawal and have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2009. I will let future historians be the judge of that proposed policy. All I will say is that for 3 years, the President has been harvesting the successes of the very strategy he consistently dismissed as a failure. I imagine this irony was not lost on a few of our troops at Fort Bragg today, most of whom deployed and fought as part of the surge.

The fact is, the President has consistently called for a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq at the earliest possible date, and he has never deviated from this position as President. Indeed, he always reaffirmed his campaign promise to end the war in Iraq and withdrawal of our troops. So perhaps it should not have come as a surprise when the President announced in October that he was ending negotiations with the Iraqi Government over whether to maintain a small number of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond this year to continue assisting Iraq security forces.

I continue to believe this decision represents a failure of leadership, both Iraqi and American; that it was a sad case of political expediency triumphing over military necessity, both in Baghdad and in Washington; and that it will have serious negative consequences for Iraq's stability and our national security interests.

I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I fear that GEN Jack Keane, who is one of the main architects of the surge, could be correct again when he said recently:

We won the war in Iraq, and we are now losing the peace.

Let me be clear. Like all Americans, I too am eager to bring our troops home. I do not want them to remain in Iraq or anywhere else for a day longer than necessary. But I also agree with our military commanders in Iraq who were nearly unanimous in their belief that some U.S. forces, approximately 20,000, should remain for a period of time to help the Iraqis secure the hard-earned gains that we had made together.

All of our top commanders in Iraq, by the way, chosen by the President of the United States--all of our top commanders in Iraq-- General Petraeus, General Odierno, General Austin, all of them believed we needed to maintain a presence of U.S. troops there, and they consistently made that clear to many of us during our repeated visits to Iraq.

On February 3, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, GEN Lloyd Austin, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Jim Jeffrey testified to the Committee on Armed Services that for all of the progress the Iraqi security forces had made in recent years--and it has been substantial-- they still have critical gaps in their capabilities that will endure beyond this year. Those shortcomings included enabling functions for counterterrorism operations, the control of Iraq's airspace, and other external security missions, intelligence collection and fusion, training and sustainment of the force.

Our commanders wanted U.S. troops to remain in Iraq beyond this year to continue assisting Iraqi forces in filling these gaps in their capabilities. Indeed, Iraqi commanders believed the exact same thing. In August, the chief of staff of Iraq's armed forces could not have been any clearer. He said:

The problem will start after 2011. The politicians must

find other ways to fill the void after 2011. If I were asked

about the withdrawal, I would say to politicians, the U.S.

Army must stay until the Iraqi Army is fully ready in 2020.

During repeated travels to Iraq with my colleagues, I have met with all of the leaders of Iraq's major political blocs, and they too said they would support keeping a presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. So let's be clear. This is what our commanders recommended, it is what Iraqi commanders recommended, and it is what all of Iraq's key political leaders said privately that they were prepared to support. So what happened? What happened?

Advocates of withdrawal are quick to point out that the current security arrangement which requires all U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by the end of this year was concluded by the Bush administration. That is true. But it is also beside the point. The authors of that agreement always intended for it to be renegotiated at a later date to allow some U.S. forces to remain in Iraq.

As former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whose State Department team negotiated the security agreements, has said:

There was an expectation that we would negotiate something

that looked like a residual force for our training with the

Iraqis. Everybody believed it would be better if there was

some kind of residual force.

So if that is not the reason, I ask again: What happened? The prevailing narrative is that the U.S. and Iraqi leaders could not reach agreement over the legal protections needed to keep our troops in Iraq. To be sure, this was a matter of vital importance. But while this may have been a reason for our failure, the privileges and immunities issues are less causes than symptoms of the larger reason we could not reach agreement with the Iraqis. Because of his political promise to fully withdraw from Iraq, the President never brought the full weight of his office to bear in shaping the politics and the events on the ground in Iraq so as to secure a residual presence of U.S. troops. This left our commanders and our negotiators in Baghdad mostly trying to respond to events in Iraq, trying to shape events without the full influence of the American President behind them.

Last May, I traveled to Iraq with the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham. We met with all of the major Iraqi leaders. All of them were ready to come to an agreement on a future presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. But as Prime Minister Malaki explained to us, the administration at that time and for the foreseeable future had not given the Iraqi Government a number of troops and missions that it would propose to keep in Iraq.

For weeks after, the administration failed to make a proposal to the Iraqis, and when the Iraqis finally united in August and publicly asked the administration to begin negotiations, the response from Washington was again characterized by delay. This ensured that a serious negotiation could not begin much less succeed.

I know Iraq is a sovereign country. I know it has an elected government that must answer to public opinion. I know there could be no agreement over a future U.S. military presence in Iraq if Iraqis did not agree to it and build support for it. So this is as much a failure of Iraqi leadership as it is of American leadership. But to blame this on the Iraqis does not excuse the fact that we had an enormous amount of influence with Iraq's leaders and we did not exercise it to the fullest extent possible to achieve an outcome that was in our national security interest.

In fact, in the view of many, they deliberately refused to come up with a number. They deliberately refused to engage in serious negotiation with the Iraqis, with the ultimate purpose of fulfilling the Presidents's campaign pledge that he would get all U.S. troops out of Iraq.

That is not a violation of sovereignty. That is diplomacy, that is leadership. Leaders must shape events and public opinion not just respond to them, and starting in early 2009, from their desire to accelerate our withdrawal from Iraq faster than our commanders recommended, to their hands-off approach to the Iraqi process of government formation last year, to their record of delay and passivity on the question of maintaining a presence of U.S. troops beyond this year, this administration has consistently failed at the highest level to lead on Iraq.

I say again, perhaps this outcome should not have been a surprise. It is what the President has consistently promised to do, and that decision makes good political sense for this President. But such decisions should not be determined by domestic politics. The brave Americans who have fought so valiantly and have given so much did so not for political reasons but for the safety and security of their fellow citizens, for their friends, for their families, for their children's future, and for us.

This is a decisive moment in the history of America's relationship with Iraq and with all of the countries of the broader Middle East. This is a moment when the substantial influence we have long enjoyed in that part of the world could be receding--in fact, it is receding. We cannot allow that to be our Nation's future. We must continue to lead. We must not let short-term political gains dictate our longer term goals. We need to continue working to shape a freer, more just, and more secure future for both Iraq and for people across the Middle East, for it is in our own national security interest to do so.

Over 4,000 brave, young Americans gave their lives in this conflict. I hope and I pray--regardless of these decisions made in large part for political reasons--that their sacrifice was not in vain. I hope their families will not mourn the day their sons and daughters went out to fight for freedom for the Iraqi people.

Unfortunately, it is clear that this decision of a complete pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq was dictated by politics and not our national security interests. I believe history will judge this President's leadership with the scorn and disdain it deserves.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss my support of S.J. Res. 10, which would require a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Let me start off by saying that we need this amendment to protect the American taxpayer and bring back fiscal discipline to Congress. We need this amendment not because the American taxpayer is taxed too little, it is because Washington in particular, Congress--spends too much. Finally, we need this amendment to show the American taxpayer that we are serious about eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication from the Federal budget and are serious about putting our country back on a path to prosperity, not bankruptcy.

The Nation's debt now stands at the unsustainable level of $15.1 trillion. The Federal Government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar spent. According to the CBO, by 2021 debt held by the public will reach 82 percent of GDP. Without real and meaningful action by Congress to reform the way we do business, the Nation's debt will balloon to well over 100 percent by 2035. CBO projects that the cost of simply paying the interest on all of this debt will total $4.5 trillion over the next decade. And we wonder why there is so much uncertainty in our economy, why businesses are not expanding and creating jobs that we so desperately need, why the approval rating of Congress is at alltime lows--and, may I add, justifiably. The writing is on the wall, and that writing says that Congress can no longer allow politics and special interests to direct how hard-earned taxpayer dollars are spent. We must make hard choices now and live within our means as every American family is required to do.

The President has said that we do not need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to cut spending and balance the budget. While that may be true, it is not the reality. When the Senate passed a balanced budget amendment in 1982, the national debt was $1.1 trillion. In 1997, when the Senate failed by one vote to pass a balanced budget amendment, the national debt was over $5 trillion. Today, it is over $15 trillion. Unfortunately, Congress has proven time and time again that they are unable to cut spending and must be required by law to do so. S.J. Res 10 is a strong, meaningful, and commonsense balanced budget amendment that will reassure financial markets and the American people, therefore, providing confidence that our economy so desperately needs.

First and foremost this constitutional amendment will require the President to lead by example and submit a balanced budget to Congress. Since being elected, President Obama has failed to send a balanced budget to Congress for consideration.

S.J. Res. 10 would also require Congress to pass a balanced budget that limits outlays to 18 percent of GDP. In addition, it would require a vote of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress in order to raise taxes on the American people. This provision is vitally important to ensure that we are not punishing the American taxpayer by making them pay for out of control spending by Washington. Finally, S.J. Res. 10 would require a vote of three-fifths of both Houses of Congress to increase the Nation's debt limit. This constitutional amendment also includes limited waivers that would, for example, allow Congress during a declaring of war to enact deficit spending or to raise the debt limit by a simple majority vote.

My colleagues on the other side have brought forth their own balanced budget amendment; however, their proposal fails to ensure that Congress will make the hard choices necessary to solve our current and long-term fiscal crisis. For example, the Democrats' balanced budget amendment does not apply to Social Security spending. According to the 2011 report by the Social Security Trustees, Social Security faces permanent deficits unless the Congress reforms the system. In fact, the program is projected to face a deficit of $46 billion this year. The Social Security disability trust fund is projected to become insolvent in 2018. We cannot be serious about solving our Nation's financial problems unless we include the Social Security Program, which is one of the largest drivers of future debt. In addition, their balanced budget amendment does not cap spending at 18 percent of GDP, it does not require a supermajority of Congress to raise taxes and does not require a supermajority of Congress to raise the debt limit. As we know too well, Congress has never voted against raising the debt limit.

This week, the Senate has the ability to show the American people that they are serious about fixing our fiscal crisis by adopting this balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This balanced budget amendment is a vital step in ensuring that future generations will have the same opportunities that all of us here in this body have experienced. I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 10.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am very moved by the words of the Senator from Hawaii--not only his words but the example he has set for all Americans of heroism and sacrifice and service to his country, and a most valued Member of the U.S. Senate but, more importantly, a genuine American hero.

I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his continued service and his continued inspiration to all Americans, especially those who are serving in the military today.

I would be glad to yield.

Mr. President, I am deeply touched by the kind and undeserved words of my old friend of many years, the distinguished majority leader. We have had our spirited combat and our agreements, but we share a commitment--the two of us--for the betterment of this Nation.

I also remind my friend from Nevada what he already knows, but I remind him, it does not take a great deal of talent to get shot down. I was able to intercept a surface-to-air missile with my own airplane, which will not go down in the Aviation Hall of Fame, not to mention the several aircraft I destroyed at taxpayers' expense in previous times.

So I thank my dear friend from Nevada, as well, for his kind words.

Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about Russia, and to review--particularly, in light of the recent election in Russia and the relationship we have--the state of what this administration has trumpeted as a so-called reset of U.S.-Russia relations, especially in light of the flawed Duma election that occurred this weekend, and in light of my strong belief that the growing demand for dignity and uncorrupt

governance that has defined the Arab world this year may impact Russia as well.

Let me once again make clear that I am not opposed to U.S. engagement with Russia. I am not opposed to working consistently in good faith with Russia to find more ways to improve our relationship. To the contrary, we must continue to actively seek ways to cooperate with Russia in mutually beneficial ways. It is in our national interest to do so. And whatever can be said about the administration's policy toward Russia, no one can accuse them of a lack of sincerity and diligence in trying to increase cooperation with Russia.

I would simply ask, What has been accomplished? What has been the result of the administration's good-faith desire for a so-called reset of relations with Russia? The answer, I am afraid, is precious little. Yes, there have been some areas of progress, but even those minor steps may now be getting rolled back.

There has been a lot of news recently pertaining to our relationship with Russia and Russia's future development, which my colleagues may have missed. It is very important to spend some time today and review these new developments.

Let's start with the issue of missile defense.

My colleagues will remember the debate we had here last year over the ratification of the New START treaty. In that debate, we spent a lot of time discussing the Russian threat to withdraw from the treaty if the United States took any further steps to build up its missile defense capabilities. Specifically, the Russian Government stated that the New START treaty ``may be effective and viable only in conditions where there is no qualitative or quantitative build-up in the missile defense system capabilities of the United States of America.'' The Russian Government stated that in the ratification of the treaty. They went on to say that if those conditions were not met, Russia would exercise its right to withdraw from the treaty.

Many of us felt strongly at the time, and feel strongly now, that it was a mistake to ratify a treaty on which the two signatories had two completely antithetical positions about the implications of that treaty, particularly as it pertains to one of our most vital national security programs--our missile defenses. Some of us thought and argued at the time that the United States should not voluntarily sign up to a treaty that would likely be used by the Russian Government as a source of political pressure and blackmail to get us to make concessions on our missile defenses.

Well, here we are, 1 year later, and let's review some of what the Russian Government has been saying and doing in this regard.

On November 23, we read an article from Bloomberg entitled ``Russia Prepares to `Destroy' U.S. Shield.'' This is what it said:

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered the military to

prepare the capability to ``destroy'' the command structure

of the planned U.S. missile-defense system in Europe.

Russia may also station strike missiles on its southern and

western flanks, including Iskander rockets in the Kaliningrad

exclave between Poland and Lithuania, both members of the

North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union,

Medvedev said on state television today.

``I have ordered the armed forces to develop measures to

ensure, if necessary, that we can destroy the command and

control systems'' of the U.S. shield, Medvedev said. ``These

measures are appropriate, effective and low-cost.''

On the same day, we read the following in an article in the New York Times entitled ``Russia Elevates Warning About U.S. Missile-Defense Plan in Europe.'' I quote from the article:

Russia will deploy its own missiles and could withdraw from

the New Start nuclear arms reduction treaty if the United

States moves forward with its plans for a missile-defense

system in Europe, President Dmitri A. Medvedev warned on

Wednesday.

``I have set the task to the armed forces to develop

measures for disabling missile-defense data and control

systems,'' Mr. Medvedev said. . . .

But it was Mr. Medvedev's comments about the New Start

treaty, put into effect this year, that suggested a darkening

tone in what has been a steady drumbeat of warnings out of

Moscow in recent days over the plans for a missile-defense

system based in Europe.

``In the case of unfavorable development of the situation,

Russia reserves the right to discontinue further steps in the

field of disarmament and arms control,'' Mr. Medvedev said in

a televised address from his residence outside Moscow.

``Given the intrinsic link between the strategic offensive

and defensive arms, conditions for our withdrawal from the

New START treaty could also arise,'' he said.

If all this were not troubling enough, we then read on November 28 an article from a Russian state news agency entitled ``Russia's NATO Envoy to Visit China, Iran, Over Missile Defense.'' Here is what was reported:

Russian envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin will visit China and

Iran in mid-January to discuss a U.S.-backed global missile

defense network.

``We are planning to visit both Beijing and Tehran soon

under the Russian president's directive, to discuss the

planned deployment of a global missile defense network,''

Rogozin said during a roundtable meeting at the lower house

of the Russian parliament.

On November 28, the Russian Government went even further, not just using the New START treaty to try to blackmail us into weakening our missile defenses but threatening to cut off NATO's supply routes into Afghanistan as well, which was another area of limited progress that the administration hailed as part of its so-called reset policy. This is how the Wall Street Journal described it last Monday in an article entitled ``Russia Considers Blocking NATO Supply Routes.''

Russia said it may not let NATO use its territory to supply

troops in Afghanistan if the alliance doesn't seriously

consider its objections to a U.S.-led missile shield for

Europe, Russia's ambassador to NATO said Monday.

If NATO does not give a serious response, ``we have to

address matters in relations in other areas,'' Russian news

services reported Dmitri Rogozin, ambassador to NATO, as

saying. He added that Russia's cooperation on Afghanistan may

be an area for review, the news services reported.

So let me summarize: After being assured that the New START treaty would contribute to the improvement of U.S.-Russia relations, and that the Russian Government would not use the treaty against us as blackmail, we are now in a situation where the President of Russia is threatening to deploy ballistic missiles to destroy U.S. missile defense systems in Europe; where he is openly threatening to withdraw his government from the New START treaty if the United States does not make unacceptable concessions on its missile defense programs; and where the Russian Ambassador to NATO is threatening to cut off NATO's supply routes to Afghanistan and planning to visit China and Iran with the purpose of deepening Russia's cooperation with those governments against U.S. missile defenses.

I think it is safe to say that the effect to date of the New START treaty on the U.S.-Russia relationship is rather less positive than originally advertised. The problems in our relationship with Russia go well beyond missile defense, as important as that is. In recent months, as the Assad regime in Syria has slaughtered roughly 4,000 of its own citizens who are seeking a democratic future, what has been the Russian Government's response? With the help of China, Russia has been absolutely shameless in blocking any serious action in the United Nations Security Council, including by vetoing a toothless security resolution that would not have even imposed sanctions but merely hinted at the possibility of sanctions. At the same time, while the Assad regime's bloody rampage has continued against the Syrian people, the Russian Government has continued to serve as its primary supplier of weaponry. In fact, last week in a story entitled ``Russia Delivers Missiles to Syria,'' AFP reported that despite the brutal violence of the Assad regime, and over Israel's strenuous objections, Russia delivered 72 supersonic cruise missiles to the Syrian Government worth at least $300 million.

Then there is Russia's continued interference in the sovereign territory and internal affairs of the Republic of Georgia, a country that the Russian military invaded in 2008 and continues to occupy to this day. Two weeks ago there was a Presidential election in the breakaway state of South Ossetia, which is part of Georgia's sovereign territory. But when Moscow's preferred candidate was overwhelmingly defeated in those elections, the supreme court of this Russian proxy state declared the results illegal and nullified

the vote. Russian parliamentarians applauded.

Finally, there is the unfortunate issue of Russia's backsliding on human rights and democracy. A few months ago, President Medvedev announced, as we all know, that he would step aside in Russia's election next year so that Vladimir Putin could once again run for the Presidency. Some see this as a sign that Putin will come back. I object to that characterization, because I do not believe Putin ever left. He has been running things in Russia with no less informal power than he had as President.

Not surprisingly, over the past 3 years, the state of human rights and freedom in that country has gotten no better. In fact, things have gotten worse. Perhaps the clearest evidence of this fact is the tragic and heartbreaking case of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax attorney working for an international company, Hermitage Capital, that had invested in Russia. Magnitsky did not spend his life as a human rights activist or an outspoken critic of the Russian Government. He was an ordinary man. But he became an extraordinary champion of justice and the rule of law in a Russia where those principles have lost nearly all meaning.

What Magnitsky uncovered was that a collection of Russian Government officials and criminals associated with them colluded to defraud the Russian state of $230 million. The Russian Government, in turn, blamed the crime on Hermitage Capital and threw Magnitsky in prison in 2008. Magnitsky was detained for 11 months without trial.

Russian officials, especially from the interior ministry, pressured Magnitsky to deny what he had uncovered, to lie and recant. But he refused. He was sickened by what his government had done and he refused to surrender. As a result, he was transferred to increasingly more severe and more horrific prison conditions. He was forced to eat unclean food and drink unclear water. He was denied basic medical care even as his health continued to deteriorate. In fact, he was placed in even worse conditions until, on November 16, 2009, having served 358 days in prison, Sergei Magnitsky died. He was 37 years old.

The Magnitsky case shined a light on the tragic realities of human rights abuses in Russia today, and the overwhelming cruelty and injustice that Magnitsky endured has made it impossible for the government and the people of Russia to ignore. Even the Public Oversight Commission of the City of Moscow for the Control of the Observance of Human Rights in Places of Forced Detention, a Russian organization empowered by Russian law to independently monitor the country's prison conditions, concluded the following in a report this year:

A man who is kept in custody and is being detained is not

capable of using all of the necessary means to protect either

his life or his health. This is a responsibility of a state

which holds him captive. Therefore, the case of Sergei

Magnitsky can be described as a breach of the right to life.

The members of the civic supervisory commission have reached

the conclusion that Magnitsky had been experiencing both

psychological and physical pressure in custody, and the

conditions in some of the wards . . . can be justifiably

called torturous. The people responsible for this must be

punished.

The case of Sergei Magnitsky is but an extreme example of a problem that is all too common in Russia today, the flagrant violations of human rights and the rule of law committed by the Russian Government and its allies outside of government. We have seen the problem in the show trial of Mikhail Khordokovsky, which I would remind my colleagues was unfolding at the exact same time that this body was debating the ratification of the New START treaty last December.

After the Russian Government stole Khordokovsky's oil company, it then turned around and charged him for the crime. Even more absurdly, as he was nearing the end of his 8-year prison sentence, the Russian state then charged him again for virtually the same crime. Before the judge had even handed down his verdict, Prime Minister Putin said, Khordokovsky ``should sit in jail.'' And lo and behold, that is exactly what the judge ultimately ruled, sentencing Khodorkovsky to 5 additional years in prison on top of the 8 years he had already served.

Earlier this year, not surprisingly, Khodorkovsky lost his appeal of this ruling. In a report released this year, Freedom House concluded that the cases of Magnitsky and Khodorkovsky:

Put an international spotlight on the Russian state's

contempt for the rule of law. . . . By silencing influential

and accomplished figures such as Khodorkovsky and Magnitsky,

the Russian authorities have made it abundantly clear that

anyone in Russia can be silenced.

The violations of human rights in Russia also extend to the deep and worsening problem of corruption, which perhaps as much as any other issue mobilizes the frustration and anger of the Russian public. In its annual index of perceptions of corruption, the independent organization Transparency International ranked Russia 154th out of 178 countries. That means that Russia is perceived as more corrupt than Pakistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. The World Bank considers 122 countries to be better places to do business than Russia. I would point out that one of those countries is the Republic of Georgia, which is ranked 12th by the World Bank.

When we consider the pattern of corruption and abuse the Russian Government has perpetrated over many years, it is not surprising to see the outpouring of anger and dissatisfaction that Russian voters expressed in this weekend's parliamentary elections. Unfortunately, the conduct of that election and especially its aftermath has only validated the growing frustration that Russians feel for their rulers. Before the ballots were even cast, a noted Russian election monitoring organization called Golos was subjected to intimidation, harassment, political pressure, and fines. The subsequent election has been criticized by impartial international observers, including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which documented in its preliminary assessment numerous irregularities and other efforts by the government to sway a vote in its favor.

Instances of ballot stuffing have been documented. For example, in Chechnya, it was reported that 99 percent of the population participated in the election and 99.5 percent of them voted for Putin's party. That seems a little suspicious, especially considering that the Putin government has waged years of bloody warfare in Chechnya.

Despite the fact that the recent Duma election fell short of international standards and violated Russia's law, substantially fewer Russian voters chose to cast their vote for Putin's party, including in its stronghold and home base of St. Petersburg. This frustration has subsequently poured into the streets where Russian citizens have peacefully sought to demonstrate against the recent election fraud. The Russian Government has responded, in turn, by arresting hundreds of opposition leaders, democracy and human rights activists, journalists, and other members of civil society, including Boris Nemtsov, Alexey Navalny, and Ilya Yashin. Those men and women are exercising universal human rights and fundamental freedoms which should not be a crime in any country.

I call on the Government of Russia to release every Russian citizen who is unjustly detained for political purposes and to clarify the whereabouts and conditions of those individuals.

Mr. President, throughout this year, I have said that the demand for dignity, justice, and democracy that is shaking the Arab world to its foundations will not be confined to that one region alone. It will spread. It will inspire others. It will demonstrate to others that the frustrations, indignities, and lack of hope they may feel today need not be the realities they endure tomorrow. They can change those realities. They can change their destiny. They can change their countries. And it appears that message may be resonating with the people in Russia. We should hope that it does resonate and resonate in a peaceful manner, because we agree with a growing number of Russians who clearly believe they deserve better. They deserve a government that respects and responds to their aspirations for a better life. They deserve the power to freely elect their own leaders.

The political development of Russia is more than an issue of moral principle for the United States. It is closely

tied to our national interests. We have seen in the past that when autocratic governments feel they are losing legitimacy among their people at home, they try to demonize others, both in their country and beyond it, and redirect their public's anger against imaginary enemies. We have seen how the Putin government has done this in the past. We have seen its attempts to paint the United States and our NATO and other allies as enemies of Russia and to lash out against us in the hope of mobilizing public support at home. This is why the growing pattern of confrontation from the Russian Government that we have seen in recent months--over missile defense, resupply efforts into Afghanistan, and other issues--should be so concerning to us and why we must understand that the actions of the Russian Government cannot be separated from its character. In fact, as Russia's Government grows less tolerant of its own people's rights at home, we should not be surprised if it treats us the same way.

As I have said before, I believe we need greater realism about Russia, but that is not the same as pessimism or cynicism or demonization. I am ultimately an optimist, and I often find sources for hope in the most hopeless of places.

One year ago, after languishing in prison for 7 years and facing the near certainty of enduring many more, Mikhail Khodorkovsky spoke before his sentencing about the hopes of the Russian people as they watched his trial. He said:

They are watching with the hope that Russia will after all

become a country of freedom and of the law. Where supporting

opposition parties will cease being a cause for reprisals.

Where the special services will protect the people and the

law, and not the bureaucracy from the people and the law.

Where human rights will no longer depend on the mood of the

tsar, good or evil. Where, on the contrary, the power will

truly be dependent on the citizens and the court, only on law

and God. For me, as for anybody, it is hard to live in jail,

and I do not want to die there. But if I have to, I will not

hesitate. The things I believe in are worth dying for.

That there are still men and women of such spirit in Russia is cause for hope. And eventually--maybe not this year or next year or the year after that but eventually--the Russian people will have a government that is worthy of their aspirations, for equal justice can be delayed and human dignity can be denied but not forever.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Last week, AOL Defense published an interview with VADM David J. Venlet, who heads up the Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter Program for the Department of Defense. In this interview, Admiral Venlet candidly offered his concerns about where the Joint Strike Fighter Program stands today. His professional judgment, while welcome in its forthrightness, is deeply troubling. His concerns, which I share, are what bring me to the floor this afternoon.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of Admiral Venlet's remarks as contained in the AOL Defense article entitled ``JSF's Build and Test Was `Miscalculation,' Adm. Venlet Says; Production Must Slow.''

Mr. President, I will briefly summarize the history of the Joint Strike Fighter Program that has taken us where we are today.

In a nutshell, the Joint Strike Fighter Program has been both a scandal and a tragedy. The JSF Program has been in the development phase for 10 years. Over that time, it has been the beneficiary of an estimated $56 billion of taxpayer investment. Yet after so much time and so great an investment by the taxpayers, we still don't have an aircraft that provides the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps with the combat capability they need. In fact, flight testing sufficient to demonstrate the full mission systems and weapons delivery capability of F-35 aircraft has not even started. At this point, this most advanced phase of flight testing won't begin any sooner than 2015.

Developing and buying these aircraft and building the facilities to support them was originally supposed to cost $233 billion. However, according to the April 2011 Government Accountability Office report on the Joint Strike Fighter, these costs are now estimated to be closer to $383 billion. Let me repeat that. The original cost was estimated to be $233 billion. Now it is estimated to be $383 billion. That is an increase of some $150 billion of the taxpayers' money. This increase in total development and acquisition costs will only get worse when the Department announces a new baseline cost estimate, which resulted from a second restructuring of the program over the last 2 years.

Overall, the schedule for the end of the development phase and start of full-rate production has slipped 5 years since the current baseline was set in 2007, and it is now planned for 2018. I want to point out that during this period of time, the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, has continued to make record profits. In fact, they just announced their third-quarter profits to be $700 million. Here is the manufacturer that was supposed to build an aircraft that was going to cost $233 billion, and now it is estimated at close to $383 billion--a $150 billion increase--and it is well known now that there will be significant cost increases to follow in light of the production manager, Admiral Venlet's remarks.

In 2001, 10 years ago, the Department of Defense told Congress that the Joint Strike Fighter would cost about $69 million per aircraft. But according to the GAO's report from April, the cost of each F-35 aircraft has now risen to about $133 million per plane. Including the cost of research, development, and testing across the entire program, the unit cost of each individual aircraft goes up to $156 million. In inflation-adjusted dollars, that is about double the original 2001 estimate. Unfortunately, we know that the estimate will go up substantially when the Pentagon releases its latest projections, with the costs of restructuring the program factored in and a new cost baseline is established for the program.

As if these costs of developing and buying the aircraft were not high enough, the Pentagon now estimates that operating and sustaining these new aircraft may cost as much as $1 trillion over their planned service life. Thankfully, I think we have reason to believe this jaw-dropping number may be artificially high and can be reduced. But keep in mind that the rule of thumb is that the cost of developing and buying a major weapons system tends to be about one-third of its total cost; the other two-thirds is in operating and sustaining it. So with the development and procurement costs of the F-35 already approaching $400 billion, it would not be unreasonable to expect sustainment costs of about $800 billion over the F-35's lifespan. That amounts to about a $1.2 trillion investment of taxpayer resources, which makes the F-35 the most expensive weapons program in history.

Over the nearly 10-year life, so far, of the F-35 program, Congress has authorized and appropriated funds for 113 of these weapons systems, but as of today the program has delivered just 18 aircraft, most of which are being used for flight testing. The first production aircraft intended for training just started to be delivered this summer--3 years late.

In July, the numbers came in on how much these early production model jets will cost compared to original estimates. That was a shocking $1 billion over the original estimate of about $7 billion. Under the cost- plus contracts for these early production aircraft, taxpayers will be on the hook for $771 million to cover their share of this cost overrun for these first 28 aircraft. Let me repeat that taxpayers of America are now on the hook for $771 million in cost overruns to cover their share for the first 28 aircraft, and Lockheed Martin will absorb the cost of $283 million. Maybe that helps you understand why Lockheed Martin, in the third quarter of this year, has been able to announce a profit of some $700 million. The cost of the first 28 is a 15-percent cost overrun when you total everybody's share. So for about $8.1 billion, we get 28 aircraft at a cost per aircraft of about $289 million.

Just last week, we learned that the costs associated with the fourth lot of these early production aircraft may be as high as 10 percent over that contract's $3.46 billion target cost. That is a $350 million overrun, with only about 40 percent of the work completed to date. That tells us that the costs of the program have still not been contained despite 2 years of very concentrated effort by the Pentagon to bring costs under control, knowing the future of the program hangs in the balance.

This brings us to where we are today and the context of Admiral Venlet's remarks. The Pentagon has recently completed its analysis of how much the next lot--the fifth lot--of early production aircraft ``should cost'' and is negotiating with Lockheed Martin on who will bear the cost of changes to the design and manufacturing of the aircraft that could result from thousands of hours of flight testing that lie ahead.

It is at this exact moment that the excessive overlap between the development and production that was originally structured into the JSF Program--called concurrency--is now coming home to roost. It means that you deliver aircraft to the owners--in this case, the Air Force--and at the same time continue testing. That is something we warned against over and over as not having worked, but it was done in order to make an effort to have some semblance of their schedule being adhered to of delivery of aircraft. Lockheed Martin doesn't want to bear the risk of new discoveries that may require retrofit or redesign of the aircraft.

Based on the in-depth studies the Department has conducted to date, Admiral Venlet told the publication AOL Defense last week that the Joint Strike Fighter Program needs to slow down production and deliveries of the aircraft. He explained that this was necessary to open the aircraft and install fixes to numerous structural cracks and ``hot spots'' the program has discovered in the plane in the last year or so. He estimated that the work needed to remedy these cracks could add an additional $3 million to $5 million per aircraft.

Bear in mind that this revelation comes on top of the fact that the Department has just reduced the latest F-35 purchase--what will be lot five--by five jets. Admiral Venlet concluded that even as the Pentagon negotiates with Lockheed Martin on lot five of the aircraft under the terms of a fixed-price contract, there is much ``heavy learning'' that remains in the program.

Here is what Admiral Venlet said:

The analyzed hot spots that have arisen in the last 12

months or so in the program have surprised us at the amount

of change and at the cost. Most of them are little ones, but

when you bundle them all up and package them and look at

where they are in the airplane and how hard they are to get

at after you buy the jet, the cost burden of that is what

sucks the wind out of your lungs. I believe it's wise to sort

of temper production for a while here until we get some of

these heavy years of learning under our belt and get that

managed right. And when we've got most of that known and

we've got the management of the change activity better in

hand, then we will be in a better position to ramp up

production.

Mr. President, 2001 was the year we decided to build this aircraft. So here we are 11 years later, and the manager of the program says, ``And when we've got most of that known and we've got the management of the change activity better in hand, then we will be in a better position to ramp up production.'' I am not making this up. Admiral Venlet, who overseas the JSF Program for the Pentagon, is basically saying that even after the program was restructured 2 years ago by Secretary Gates to add $7.3 billion and 33 more months to development, there is still too much concurrency baked into this program. In other words, the overlap between development and production is still too great to assure taxpayers that they will not have to continue paying for costly redesigns or retrofits due to discoveries made late in production. In that context, ramping up production--even under the program's revised schedule--would not be a move in the right direction. I absolutely agree.

When the head of the most expensive, highest profile weapons system program in U.S. history effectively says: Hold it, we need to slow down how much we are buying, we should all pay close attention.

What does this mean in terms of the pending negotiations for the next production lot? As I said a few days ago during my opening remarks on Senate consideration of the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, I strongly support the Department's position. I think Admiral Venlet's concerns are completely consistent with the view reflected in the Senate Armed Services Committee's markup of the Defense authorization bill.

As we negotiate to buy more early production jets at a time when most of the developmental testing of the aircraft is yet to be done, Lockheed Martin must be held increasingly accountable for cost overruns that come as a result of wringing out necessary changes in the design and manufacturing process for this incredibly expensive weapons system. For this reason, the Department must negotiate a fixed-price contract for this next lot of aircraft that requires Lockheed Martin to assume fully any cost overruns. I expect that this contract negotiation will reflect unit costs that are lower than for the last lot purchased and that the contract will ensure shared responsibility for reasonable concurrency cost increases.

Put simply, the deal we negotiate on this next production lot must be at least as good, if not better, than the deal we negotiated under the previous one; otherwise, I can only conclude that we are moving in the wrong direction, and it will only be a matter of time before the American people and the Congress and our allies lose faith with the F- 35 program, which is already the most expensive weapons program in history.

One thing is clear: The culprit is, among other things, excessive concurrency, which is overlap of trying to develop an advance aircraft at the same time as we buy production model aircraft intended for training and operations. The danger of excessive concurrency is the grand, enormously expensive lesson of the Joint Strike Fighter Program, a lesson we continue to overlook at our peril: Trying to execute a strategy for the acquisition of a major weapons system that has too much concurrency based into it under a cost-type contract is absolutely a recipe for disaster.

In so many different aspects, the F-35 program truly represents a tragedy. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps desperately need a new aircraft to take the place of the current strike and fighter jets that have been at war for most of the last 10 years. These well-worn legacy aircraft are coming to the end of their service lives, but we are saddled with a program that has little to show for itself after 10 years and $56 billion in taxpayer investment that has produced less than 20 test and operational aircraft, a bill for $\3/4\ billion, and the promise of considerable ``heavy learning'' yet to go.

Admiral Venlet's message last week clearly conveyed the path we are on is neither affordable nor sustainable. On that fact he and I are in total agreement. But that agreement provides very little solace. If things don't improve quickly, taxpayers and the warfighters will insist all options will be on the table, and they should be.

Mr. President, I came to the Senate floor today to talk specifically about the F-35 aircraft. I will be coming to the floor again on the whole issue of what is, unfortunately, a culture of corruption in the Pentagon as far as weapon systems acquisition is concerned. Time after time, with regard to the future combat system, the F-35, the shipbuilding, the littoral combat ship, there is story after story after story of cost overruns, of cancellation, of delays, of incredible cost to the taxpayer. We never should have gotten into it. We simply cannot afford to do it now. We have to reform the culture of corruption that pervades the Pentagon, and we must reform the way we acquire the weapons and the systems necessary to defend this Nation.

I am not saying there aren't success stories. Certainly, there are. MRAP is an example of a success story. But when we look at the tens of billions and billions of dollars that have been wasted on research and development on weapons systems that never got off the ground, when we look at what happened to the future combat systems, the littoral combat ship, now the F-35, there must be reform or the taxpayers and citizens of America will lose faith in our ability to defend this Nation at a cost that is reasonable in these extremely difficult economic times for all Americans.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Would the Senator yield for a question on that subject point?

The individual who was an American citizen--Mr. Hamdi, the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court case--was an American citizen captured in Afghanistan; is that correct?

Yet in the Supreme Court decision reference is made to an individual who was captured during World War II in the United States of America; isn't that correct? It was referenced in the Supreme Court decision.

The reason why I raise the question is because the Senator from Illinois, and others, have cited the fact that Hamdi was an American citizen but captured in Afghanistan, not in the United States of America.

Yet isn't it a fact that the decision in Hamdi also made reference to a person who was apprehended in the United States of America?

This is what is bizarre about this discussion, it seems to me.

So I guess my question is, it is relevant where the citizen of the United States was captured. Because the decision made reference to people captured both in the United States and outside the United States.

Madam President, before we begin the debate, and with the Senator from California on the floor, for the benefit of our colleagues and the chairman, there are two pending Feinstein amendments, as I understand it. The Senator from California has agreed to the half hour equally divided as the chair just said, and then I understand the Senator from California has agreed to the second amendment at 4 p.m.; is that correct?

So prior to that, I would ask my friend the chairman if we could have an hour of debate starting at 3 o'clock equally divided before the vote at 4:00 on the second Feinstein amendment.

If we can then--obviously, we can call a vote at any particular time. So I would suggest again that we try to dispose of other amendments after the vote on the first Feinstein amendment, and then we will try to dispose of additional amendments between the disposition of the first Feinstein amendment and the second one, with the hour of debate equally divided, and Senator Feinstein can begin.

Madam President, I wish to yield----

Does the Senator want to unanimous-consent that?

Madam President, the vote will be at 2 o'clock. The Senators from New Hampshire and South Carolina wish to speak. I do not know if the chairman wishes to be before or during that or in between. But, also, it does not change the agreement we have, which has not been agreed to but we have agreed we will attempt to have a vote on the second Feinstein amendment at 4 o'clock still. Is that correct? We will attempt to do that?

So beginning at 3, whether we have a unanimous consent agreement--because the Feinstein amendment is very important--I would ask, informally, if we do not have a unanimous consent agreement, that we have an hour equally divided beginning at 3 so we can debate the second Feinstein amendment.

In the meantime, as the chairman said, we will try to dispense with voice votes and other agreed-upon amendments, and perhaps even maybe a recorded vote if necessary on one of the amendments.

I would remind my colleagues, we run out of time at 6 o'clock this evening, and we would rather do it in a measured fashion, allowing recorded votes or debate before those recorded votes, because those pending amendments will be voted on after 6 p.m. tonight.

I hope I did not say anything the chairman does not agree with.

Madam President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire and 8 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Madam President, I say to both Senators while they are on the floor, if it had not been for their invaluable effort, this legislation would not have come about. I thank them for their incredibly important contributions, using the benefit of the experience that both Members have.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

Is it the Senator's impression that action by the United Nations Security Council is pretty dim given the stated positions of Russia and China on this issue?

So then it really makes a more compelling argument to those who may be wavering on this amendment that there is a clear record on the part of China and Russia in the U.N. Security Council that we cannot expect a Security Council vote, but perhaps we could expect other nations to follow suit once the United States leads on this issue.

I thank the Senator.

May I ask one additional question?

These questions are for either Senator.

Is it true that in this legislation, there is a national security waiver, that the President can waive the provisions of this bill if he feels it is in the national interest? Also, how do you respond to the argument being put forward that this could destroy the world's financial system if this legislation would be put into effect?

On behalf of Senator Inhofe, I ask to withdraw amendment No. 1093.

Mr. President, very briefly I would like to thank the Senators for their leadership on this issue. There is a threat to the security of the world posed by the Islamic nation of Iran. This is much needed legislation.

I think it is important to note, as they did, that there is a national security waiver given to the President of the United States, and also we cannot expect a lot of help considering the membership of the United Nations Security Council and Russia and China's unwillingness to act on behalf of reining in this path that Iran is on to the acquisition and the possibility and the capability for the use of nuclear weapons.

I congratulate both sponsors of the amendment, and I hope we can get a recorded vote.

I yield the floor.

Where would the congressional and staff salaries fit on that?

I thank the Senator.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I thank my friend. I believe the Senator overlooked Brown of Massachusetts amendment No. 1090, I think, was agreed to be a part of that.

I note the presence of our friend from Texas, who would like to voice his objections to the package of amendments which is pending which have been agreed by both sides because of his concerns about a particular amendment he had. I would like to hear from him in a minute.

I would like to say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, if you have an objection, please come to the floor. We would intend to vote--or seek approval of what the distinguished chairman just proposed--at 5 after the hour. That gives them 15 minutes.

I yield the floor.

I just wish to say I strongly support the amendment by the Senator from Texas, and I will do everything I can to see that this issue is raised. I cannot comprehend why we would not want to provide one of our closest allies with the equipment they need to defend themselves with the growingly aggressive mainland China exhibiting the characteristics of intimidation and bullying and perhaps threatening Taiwan.

I wished to state, first of all, my appreciation to both Senators from Texas, who have been very involved in this issue, and I wish to tell them I will do everything I can to make sure this amendment is adopted. We do need to send the signal that we support our friends.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his amendment. He has spent a great deal of time in his life serving in the National Guard, including spending time in Afghanistan recently. He understands the burdens our National Guard men and women bear. I am very grateful for his careful attention to their needs. This is clearly an issue that needed to be addressed. We are proud to have it as part of our legislation.

Again, my thanks to the Senator from Massachusetts as well as to my friend, Chairman Levin, for helping make this amendment possible.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, for the benefit of our colleagues, after spirited discussions for a long period of time we have reached a compromise with the Senator from California on language concerning detainees and there are certain Members on my side who wanted a vote on the original amendment as written. We modified it, so that there will be a vote on the original Feinstein amendment and then on the one which is modified by agreement among most of the people involved. There may be some who will still oppose it, but we have reached an agreement among the Senator from California, the chairman, myself, the Senator from Idaho, the Senator from South Carolina and others, that I think will be agreeable to the majority of the Members.

I suggest to my friend, the chairman, that when the vote starts at 6, perhaps we can line up the other remaining amendments, on some of which we hope to get voice votes, some of which will require recorded votes, as is the procedure under postcloture.

Mr. President, in the minutes remaining between now and 6 p.m. I hope we could roughly divide time on the amendment between the two sides.

I ask how much time is remaining?

I wish to give 3 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina, preceded by 2 minutes from the Senator from Idaho, and 2 minutes for the Senator from New Hampshire if she arrives.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I will not repeat what the chairman said except that I would like to thank Senator Feinstein for her willingness to sit down and negotiate with us, and Senator Durbin, who has been a passionate advocate. I would also like to thank all of the people who came to the floor so often. I think the Senate is a better institution as a result of the debate, and I am sure the Senate and the American people are much better informed on this very important national security aspect of this bill.

I thank my colleagues. I urge an aye vote.

I support the amendment. I think this amendment is vital at this time to send a strong signal to Iran, which recently tried to pull off the assassination of the Saudi Ambassador here in Washington, DC. It is long overdue, and it is too bad that the United States has to do it by ourselves rather than having the U.N. Security Council act. This is a strong amendment. I think it is very important and, again, I strongly support it.

Yes.

I thank the Senator.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1080 Withdrawn

It is agreeable on both sides.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1202, As Modified

I yield back the 1 minute of time remaining.

Reluctantly.

I have nothing more to add. I wish to vote.

It sounds simplistic, and the hour is late and we need to vote, but the fact is there were 382 amendments that were submitted. There were hundreds of amendments that were waiting, and the fact is that initially the Cornyn amendment was not agreed to, so it is a little more complicated than that. There were literally 400 or 500 amendments that were filed, and we had to at some point cut off the process. For next year's bill we will try to get a situation where it is far more inclusive and far more informative. When you are dealing with 500 amendments, I know that each is important, but there is no way you are going to be able to get through the authorization bill with that many amendments that are filed, and that is just a fact. We are doing the best we can to accommodate the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Oklahoma and every other Senator who didn't get their amendment voted on.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I thank the chairman. One of the things I look back on with great nostalgia and appreciation is the relationship we have developed over many years. I must say that we have had spirited discussions from time to time, but they have been educational, enlightening, and entertaining. I thank the Senator for his leadership.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I would like to say to my colleagues, we have been waiting approval of a managers' package of amendments that have been cleared by both sides. It is not a managers' package. It is simply a group of amendments that have been proposed by Members on both sides of the aisle, approved--no one has objected--and yet there are objections to moving forward with these amendments in a package. There are important amendments by Members on both sides.

I would urge my colleagues who would object to moving forward with this package of amendments which have been agreed to by both sides--and there has been no objection voiced to them individually--that I would like to move to adopt those shortly before the vote on cloture at 11 o'clock. If someone objects to that, then I would insist that they come over to the floor and object. That is the procedure we will follow that I would like to inform my colleagues.

In other words, we have a group of amendments. They have been cleared by both sides; no one objects. And yet there seems to be an objection to moving forward with a group of amendments that has already been agreed to. So according to parliamentary rules, I will insist that the Member be here present to object when I move forward with the package shortly before the hour of 11. Anyone watching in the offices, please inform your Senator of that decision.

They have been cleared on this side.

Madam President, I thank my colleagues for allowing this package of these amendments to go through. We will be working on additional amendments that we can agree to.

We are about to vote on cloture, and if cloture is invoked, I want to inform my colleagues, those amendments that are pending and filed will be eligible for votes, and we will be using the chronology of when they were filed. We will be notifying every Member who has an amendment that is filed and pending and germane. We will try to arrange time agreements for those who want votes. We will be looking to also see areas where we could agree and adopt an additional package. It is my understanding that if cloture is invoked, we will have 30 hours, and during that period we wish to get these amendments resolved.

I remind my colleagues that if the 30 hours expires and there are still pending germane filed amendments, there will have to be additional votes taken at some time after the 30 hours. So I would urge my colleagues who have filed, pending, germane amendments that we sit down during the cloture vote or just afterward and try and arrange a schedule of votes that is most convenient for them in keeping with their schedule.

Again, I thank my colleagues for allowing that package to go through. Those are very important amendments which have been agreed to by both sides. I realize we have a long way to go, but this is a significant step forward.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, briefly, while my friend from Colorado is on the floor, he said: Take the time. We have been taking time, I tell the Senator from Colorado, since September 11, 2001, when the United States of America was attacked. We passed the Detainee Treatment Act. We passed other pieces of legislation--the PATRIOT Act, and others. Take the time?

I say, in all due respect, we have taken a lot of time--in fact, hundreds and hundreds of hours of debate, discussion--as to how to address this threat to the United States of America.

If the Senator from Colorado supports the Feinstein amendment, I agree with that. I cannot agree that we have not taken the time. I personally have taken--I cannot tell you--untold hours addressing this issue of how we treat detainees. We may have a fundamental disagreement, but I do reject the argument that we have not taken the time.

I yield the floor.

Go ahead.

I thank the Senator from Colorado for his clarification, and I think I understand more clearly his rationale for his support of the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent to withdraw McCain amendment No. 1230, as modified.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I support the amendment, as modified, by the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker, who has devoted a great deal of time and effort and thought to this issue, and the result is this amendment. I point out that it would require the Secretary of Defense to prepare a report on the effectiveness of coalition support fund reimbursements made to Pakistan in support of coalition military operations in Afghanistan.

Before I proceed, let me once again express my deep condolences to the families of the Pakistani soldiers who were killed this weekend in a cross-border air action. All Americans are deeply saddened by this tragedy, and I fully support NATO and the U.S. military in their commitment to conduct a thorough and expeditious investigation.

As my colleagues will recall--this is an important aspect of Senator Corker's amendment--Congress has authorized and appropriated funding for coalition support fund reimbursements to Pakistan since we began our military operations in Afghanistan. At the time, Pakistan made a strategic decision to support the U.S. war effort against the Taliban government in Afghanistan and their al-Qaida terrorist allies. In response, Congress and the Bush administration agreed to reimburse the Pakistani Government for military activities that support our mission in Afghanistan.

Over the past decade, Congress has provided billions of dollars worth of these reimbursements to Pakistan, and we should acknowledge that much good has come of it. Over the past few years in particular, Pakistan has shifted tens of thousands of their soldiers from the eastern border of their country opposite India to the tribal areas in western Pakistan. Pakistani troops have been deployed and engaged in military operations in their western provinces and tribal areas for more than 2 years straight. They have paid a heavy price in this prolonged fighting.

Hundreds of Pakistani troops have given their lives to fight our mutual terrorist enemies in their country, and thousands of Pakistani civilians have been tragically murdered in the same time by these militant groups who show no compunction about attacking weddings and funerals and mosques. We honor the sacrifice of Pakistan's soldiers, and we mourn the loss of innocent Pakistani civilians.

It must be noted, however, that certain deeply troubling realities exist within Pakistan. It must be noted that elements in Pakistan's army and intelligence service continue to support the Haqqani Network and other terrorist groups that are killing U.S. troops in Afghanistan, as well as innocent civilians in Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan. It must also be noted that the vast majority of the materials for improvised explosive devices that are maiming and killing U.S. troops in Afghanistan originate within Pakistan. These are facts. We cannot deny them. Any effective strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan must proceed from this realistic basis.

It is for this reason that I believe this amendment and this report would be extremely useful. Already, in response to recent Pakistani activities, the administration has chosen to withhold coalition support fund reimbursements to Pakistan. Over the past two quarters, that withheld money amounts to roughly $600 million. I can imagine that, amid the current tensions, further administration requests to Congress for reimbursement of coalition support funds for Pakistan will not be forthcoming.

The report requested in this amendment would seek additional information on the amounts, types, and effectiveness of coalition support fund reimbursements to the Government of Pakistan. It also would seek recommendations as to the future disposition of this program, including potential alternatives to it or the possible termination of it altogether. That option cannot be ruled out. This is valuable information and recommendations to have as Congress continues to discuss and debate not just the future of the coalition support fund reimbursements to Pakistan but the future of our relationship with Pakistan more broadly. I strongly support this amendment.

Again, I don't want to spend too much time stating the facts. This is a terrible dilemma. The fact is that Pakistan is a nuclear nation. They have a significant nuclear inventory. The fact is that for 10 years we and Pakistan had virtually no relations. We found that not to be a productive exercise. But at the same time, when there exists--as my colleague from Tennessee agrees--two fertilizer factories from which come the majority of the materials used for the majority of IEDs manufactured and that are killing young Americans, it is not tolerable. I understand, as I have said earlier in my comments, the tragedy that resulted from the deaths of these young Pakistani soldiers. I also understand, as every one of us does, what it is like to call a family member of a young man or woman who has lost their life in Afghanistan, which has happened many times, as a result of an IED.

In a hearing of the Armed Services Committee, the then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ADM Mike Mullen, stated:

The fact remains that the Quetta Shura and the Haqqani

Network operate from Pakistan with impunity.

I wish to repeat, these are the words of the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Extremist organizations serving as proxies of the

government of Pakistan are attacking Afghan troops and

civilians as well as U.S. soldiers. For example, we believe

the Haqqani Network--which has long enjoyed the support and

protection of the Pakistani government and is, in many ways,

a strategic arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence

Agency--is responsible for the September 13th attacks against

the U.S. embassy in Kabul.

He goes on to say:

This is ample evidence confirming that the Haqqanis were

behind the June 28th attack against the Inter-Continental

Hotel in Kabul and the September 10th truck bomb attack that

killed five Afghans and injured another 96 individuals, 77 of

whom were U.S. soldiers . . .

Finally, another comment by Admiral Mullen who, by the way, worked very hard for a long period of time to develop a close working relationship with General Kayani and other military leaders in Pakistan. He went on to say:

The Quetta Shura and the Haqqani Network are hampering

efforts to improve security in Afghanistan, spoiling

possibilities for broader reconciliation, and frustrating

U.S.-Pakistan relations. The actions by the Pakistani

government to support them--actively and passively--

represents a growing problem that is undermining U.S.

interests and may violate international norms, potentially

warranting sanction. In supporting these groups, the

government of Pakistan, particularly the Pakistani Army,

continues to jeopardize

Pakistan's opportunity to be a respected and prosperous

Nation with genuine regional and international influence.

Finally, I wish to say again this is an incredibly difficult challenge for U.S. security policy. We have a country on which we are dependent in many respects for supplies, for cooperation, for, hopefully, not to be a sanctuary, although it is not the case, for Taliban and al-Qaida elements. We have a country that is a nuclear power, and we have a country that has a government that I will say charitably is very weak.

It seems to me the Corker amendment is important for the American people to know exactly where we are, what policy we are going to formulate, and what measures need to be taken, because we have, as I mentioned earlier, spent billions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars. That doesn't play very well in States such as mine where we have 9 percent unemployment and more than half--or just less than half the homes underwater. So the Corker amendment isn't all we need. In fact, we need to have a national debate and discussion about the whole issue of our relations with Pakistan. But I believe the Corker amendment is a very important measure so we can assure the American people that not only are their tax dollars wisely spent but that actions are being taken to prevent needless wounding and death of our brave young men and women who are serving in the military.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I must admit that I have heard some bizarre arguments in my time as a Member of this body in referencing the Constitution of the United States as a basis for the argument. Now, it is my understanding my friend from South Carolina--I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

It is my understanding that under the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court of the United States that gives the interpretation of the Constitution as to various laws and challenges to the Constitution. It is their responsibility. Is that a correct assumption?

So our colleague from Illinois who continues to quote from the Constitution of the United States fails to quote from the specific addressing of this issue by the U.S. Supreme Court, specifically the Hamdan decision. Is that correct?

Is it not true that according to that decision, the U.S. Supreme Court, whom we ask to interpret the Constitution of the United States--they have made many interpretations over the years--says there is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.

Now, one would think to the casual observer that is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court meant. It is fairly plain language, not really complicated. I am not a lawyer, but how the Senator from Illinois, quoting from inalienable rights, can somehow totally disregard in every way what the U.S. Supreme Court says--they go on to say we hold that ``citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government''--and I believe, in the view of most, they would view that as a member of al-Qaida, which this legislation specifically addresses. We hold that ``citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government and with its aid, guidance and direction,'' which is exactly, basically, the language of our legislation, ``aid, guidance and direction enter this country,'' enter this country, ``bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the law of war.''

How can anything be more clear to the Senator from Illinois? I mean, it is beyond belief. It is beyond belief.

They then go on and talk about the Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court does. They talk about the Civil War. They talk about a code binding the Union Army during the Civil War that captured rebels would be treated as prisoners of war. So a citizen, no less than an alien, can ``be part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners and engaged in an armed conflict against the United States.''

Now, after 9/11, we declared that we were at war with al-Qaida. Is that correct?

So we are at war. We have American citizens who are enemy combatants. Yet the Senator from Illinois, in the most bizarre fashion that I have heard, says, therefore, they are

guaranteed the protections of--as he said--a trial.

I mean, I do not get it. Maybe the Senator from South Carolina can explain.

Was not one of the most famous cases a woman whose name was Tokyo Rose, who propagandized--she was an American citizen. She propagandized on behalf of the Japanese when we were in the war. Afterwards she was given a military trial.

Not a civilian trial, not given her Miranda rights, but tried by military tribunal.

To interrupt, briefly, I wonder--in the interpretation of the Senator from Illinois of the Constitution of the United States--if it is an American citizen, say, somewhere over in Pakistan, who is plotting and seeking to destroy American citizens, it is OK for us to send a predator and fire and kill that person, but according to the interpretation of the Senator from Illinois, if that person were apprehended in Charleston planning to blow up Shaw Air Force Base, then that person would be given his Miranda rights, how in the world does that fit?

Again, this is one of the more bizarre discussions I have had in the 20-some years I have been a Member of this body.

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order. What is the regular order?

Isn't it true that Justice O'Connor was specifically referring to a case of a person who was captured on Long Island? Last I checked, Long Island was part--albeit sometimes regrettably--part of the United States of America.

Captured in the United States of America.

Those are the facts of the case.

Madam President, I am afraid we have to move to the amendment of Senator Merkley, who has been very patient.

Can I ask the indulgence----

Could I ask the indulgence of my friend from Oregon, that the Senator from South Carolina be allowed 2 minutes, and the Senator from New Hampshire be allowed 5 minutes? Would that be all right with the Senator from Oregon?

I thank him for his courtesy too. I say to the Senator from Illinois, this is an important debate and discussion. I appreciate his presentation. I think a lot of people are getting a lot of good information, on what is a very complex and very central issue. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

I yield.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I oppose this amendment for one simple reason. It requires the President to submit a plan to Congress for an accelerated drawdown from Afghanistan--an accelerated withdrawal; not just the withdrawal that is already planned, not the withdrawal that has already been accelerated on several occasions, but a new accelerated drawdown.

The President is supposed to submit a plan to Congress for an accelerated drawdown from Afghanistan. Does that mean the Congress of the United States could see a plan for an accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan? Is it required that it be implemented by Congress or is it a nice informational, notional kind of thing: Here is a plan. Hey, let's get together. I have a plan. And the President's drawdown plan, our senior military commanders have stated, is already--already--more accelerated than they are comfortable with.

First of all, I don't get the point of the Senator's amendment, which is to submit a plan. It doesn't require that the plan be acted on, just a plan. I can submit a plan for him if it is plans he is interested in. But the fact is we are accelerating our withdrawal from Afghanistan at great risk, as our military commanders have testified--much greater risk. So I guess another accelerated plan would obviously have the result of even greater risk to the men and women in the military.

I understand the opposition of the Senator from Oregon to the war. That is fine. I respect that. But an amendment that a plan is to be submitted without any requirement that it be implemented--a plan which would already accelerate more what has already been accelerated--I guess is some kind of statement.

The plan as required by this amendment would be based on inputs from our military commanders. I can tell the Senator from Oregon what our military commanders in Afghanistan have said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is that more acceleration would mean greater risk. The acceleration that is already taking place means greater risk. But the Senator from Oregon wants a more accelerated plan, I guess.

Then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, testified before the House Armed Services Committee on June 23--this is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--that the President's drawdown plan would be--that is the present plan, not an accelerated plan such as the amendment proposes--``more aggressive and incur more risks than I was originally prepared to accept.''

I wonder if the Senator from Oregon heard that. The present plan is ``more aggressive and would incur more risks'' than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have been prepared to accept. So with this amendment, we accelerate even more.

On the same day, in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, GEN David Petraeus stated that no military commander recommended what the President ultimately decided. That is the present plan.

Their concerns were well grounded. Our commanders had wanted to keep the remaining surge forces in Afghanistan until the conclusion of next year's fighting season, which roughly occurs with the onset of the colder months. That was their recommendation to the President. So now the President shall devise a plan based on inputs from military commanders. I can tell the Senator from Oregon what the input from the military commanders is. It is the same input he got with the first accelerated withdrawal. All we have to do is pick up the phone and ask them. We don't have to have an amendment. That was their recommendation to the President. However, the President chose to disregard that advice and announce that all U.S. forces would be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of next summer. That guarantees that just as the fighting season next year is at its peak, U.S. surge forces will be leaving Afghanistan. In my view, that is a huge and unnecessary risk to our mission. But the decision has been made. I think there will be great long-term consequences to it.

A story was related to me recently by a former member of the previous administration, high ranking, in a meeting with one of the highest ranking members of the Government of Pakistan. He said to this high- ranking government official: What do you think the chances for peace with the Taliban are? That individual laughed and said, Why should they make peace? You are leaving.

Those are fundamental facts. The primary reason for maintaining all of our surge forces in Afghanistan through next year's fighting season is because of another time the President chose to disregard the advice of his military commanders. It is well known that our military leaders had wanted a surge to be 40,000 U.S. troops, but the President only gave them 33,000. So rather than being able to prioritize the south and east of Afghanistan at the same time, as they had planned, our commanders had to focus first in the south, which they did last year and this year, and then concentrate on eastern Afghanistan next year, all because they didn't have enough troops.

That is not my opinion; that is the sworn testimony of military leaders before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The President's decision made the war longer and now our commanders will not have the forces they said they wanted and needed to finish the job in eastern Afghanistan.

Before we mandate a plan to further accelerate the drawdown of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, I suggest we review the facts and consider the potential consequences of the overly accelerated drawdown we already have.

Before we base such a plan on the views of our military commanders, I certainly recommend that my colleagues travel to Afghanistan and speak with those commanders who can explain far better than I can why further accelerating our drawdown is reckless and wrong.

So I do not get the amendment. I do not understand why the title of it is ``To require a plan for the expedited transition of responsibility for military and security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan.''

As I said, in case the Senator from Oregon missed it, we have already accelerated, and in the view of our military commanders, unanimously, it is a far greater risk.

It says:

The President shall devise a plan based on inputs from

military commanders, NATO and Coalition allies, the

diplomatic missions in the region, and appropriate members of

the Cabinet, along with the consultation of Congress, for

expediting the drawdown of United States combat troops in

Afghanistan and accelerating the transfer of security

authority. . . .

Apparently, the Senator from Oregon is not satisfied with the President's already accelerated plan for withdrawal from Afghanistan beginning in the fall of--well, it has already begun--but the serious withdrawal in the fall, September 2012.

I can assure--I can assure--the Senator from Oregon that if our withdrawal, which I greatly fear now, will have long-term consequences, a further accelerated withdrawal will absolutely guarantee that Afghanistan becomes a cockpit--a cockpit--of competing interests from Iran, from India, from Pakistan, and from other countries in the region. I think the people of Afghanistan deserve better.

So I will, obviously, oppose this amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire had intended to talk about her amendment and withdraw it, and she may be coming. I have not had a chance to notify her, so there may be a couple-minute delay.

So I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in an exchange I had on the floor, I mentioned the people on wonderful Long Island. I made a joke. I am sorry there is at least one of my colleagues who cannot take a joke. So I apologize if I offended him and hope that someday he will have a sense of humor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1229 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I note the presence of my colleague, Senator Lieberman, on the floor, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

I thank my friend from Connecticut for his support of this amendment and the importance, with the full realization of the key role the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee plays in the issue of cyber security, which is the most--in many respects, one of the most looming threats to our Nation's security.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut, my dear friend. The amendment establishes a statutory basis for the memorandum of agreement between the Department of Defense and Homeland Security on cooperative cyber-security support. Nobody should have any doubt about how serious this issue is. Secretary of Defense Panetta said this in June:

The next ``Pearl Harbor'' we confront could very well be a

cyber attack.

ADM Mike Mullen at a hearing on 9/22 referred to the cyber-threat as an existential threat to our country. This is a serious issue and one that, as the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, is of utmost importance to our Nation's security.

I thank my friend for cosponsoring my amendment, and share his concern about the threat our Nation faces. In a hearing before the Armed Services Committee just two months ago, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen called the cyber threat an ``existential'' threat to our country.

The purpose of my amendment is to codify the current memorandum of agreement, and to ensure that the relationship between DoD and DHS endures. This growing partnership demonstrates that the best government-wide cybersecurity approach is one where DHS leverages, not duplicates, DoD efforts and expertise. This is just one of the many issues we need to address on cyber legislation, and does not diminish the need for a comprehensive bill addressing our Nation's cybersecurity. But our work together on this should serve as an example of where consensus can and should exist moving forward.

I agree, and I again thank my colleague for supporting my amendment. While at the end of the day we may not agree on all of the provisions of a bill, I look forward to working together early in the coming year to address these issues under a process that allows for full debate of the issues on which we may differ.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.